The law in the Province of Saskatchewan is on the cusp of undergoing a groundbreaking change. For years, disputes over pets were considered mere property, not enjoying familial rights. Courts in this Province, haunted by the spectre of Henderson v Henderson, 2016 SKQB 282 grimaced at the idea of granting possessory orders of familial pets (traditionally dogs as there is a lack of judicial decisions showing a desire to own a cat). Alas, lawyers across this great province cautioned clients about dog law related issues, warning that possessory applications in King's Bench were not to go to the Court lest the pooch be sold, feelings be damned. But this too appears to be changing...
Yet the seed of change has been planted in the most unlikely of places in this Province. In the halls of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan, in the corners of Civil Division, and pursuant to The Small Claims Act, 2016, SS 2016, c S-50.12, Judge Demong has granted an order not commonly found. He has ordered the possession of 'Charlie', a Pug/Boston Terrier cross (assumed to be cute). Importantly, Judge Demong placed emphasis on one specific factor that arose to a level of criticality comparable to the Chernobyl Incident. This specific factor, standing apart from all other factors in property related disputes, was the best interests of Charlie the Pug.
In this instance, one party (the successful party) put Charlie's physical health and vaccination status first and foremost in their care routine. Despite adversity, trials, and tribulations (in the form of an apparently ornery direction to a veterinarian not to vaccinate Charlie for reasons unknown and assumed to be incorrect), the 'Dog-Mom' obtained not just one vaccination, but three. Thanks to this successful Dog-Mom, Charlie was protected against Rabies, Bordetella, and DAPP (all highly contagious and deadly diseases). The Court looked at these valiant inoculations positively, and as all other factors were equal, granted the ultimate ownership of Charlie the Magnificent to the Dog-Mom.
This marks a subtle change in the state of pet-related disputes in the Province of Saskatchewan. For the first time since Henderson, a Court has strayed beyond the strict confines of traditional property ownership consideration. For the first time, a Court has looked at a dog beyond the lens of pure ownership to determine the ultimate ownership (and therefore residence) of man's best friend, with an eye to the best interests of furry little friends. To the trained eye, it even appears that the empathetic recognition previously identified by the Court has begun to grow and change the legal tests determining such matters.
To that end, family lawyers across the Province rejoice. The billable-hour model of old that has voraciously fed on custody and access disputes has just obtained an apéritif. Childless yet acrimonious clients may have yet one more item to fight over in the long list of potential disputes. As the law evolves further, dog law may yet turn into an unsightly meal for ravenous counsel. Mediation may even have to accommodate the dog's own needs or wants, with owners at each end of a table asking Fido to "Come Here".
With these changes potentially on the horizon, the only question left unanswered may now be crisply examined: Does anyone fight over the cat?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
