Paws and Jurisdiction
BC Supreme Court confirms small claims court's power in pet custody battles
In one of my recent cases, the Supreme Court of British Columbia grappled with the question of jurisdiction for the first time since the recent changes to the Family Law Act (FLA) – namely whether Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear “pet custody” matters. The case involved a separated couple disputing ownership of their dog highlighting the complexities of pet custody in civil and family law.
The couple, who had dated for several years, disagreed on whether they met the definition of "spouses" under the FLA. The ex-boyfriend initiated a small claims proceeding for the return of the dog, which was in the possession of the ex-girlfriend. In response, the ex-girlfriend filed a family law action in the Supreme Court.
Initially, the Small Claims Court set trial dates but later cancelled them, adjourning the matter indefinitely pending resolution of the Supreme Court action (“Decision”). The ex-boyfriend sought judicial review of the Decision, arguing that the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction to continue hearing the dispute despite the ongoing Supreme Court action.
Legal Framework
The jurisdiction question hinged on several key legal points:
- Small Claims Act: Section 3 grants the Provincial Court jurisdiction in claims for recovery of personal property and relief from opposing claims to personal property, provided the value is within prescribed limits.
- Pets as Property: Domestic animals are still considered “property,” albeit a special kind that may involve consideration of the animal's best interests.
- Family Law Act Amendments: As of January 2024, the FLA was amended to grant Provincial Court jurisdiction over companion animal disputes under Part 5 (Property Division) of the FLA (pursuant to section 193 of the FLA).
The ex-boyfriend argued that the Small Claims Act grants small claims court the jurisdiction to hear disputes involving the recovery of property. Since the dog is considered property with a value below the $35,000 small claims limit, the Provincial Court is well within its jurisdiction to hear this dispute.
Further, the ex-boyfriend argued that the Provincial Court has previously heard "pet custody" matters, and there was no valid reason why it should not do so in this case.
He also argued that keeping the case in Small Claims Court aligns with the Small Claims Act’s purpose of providing a just and speedy resolution.
The ex-boyfriend further argued that even if the parties were considered "spouses" under the FLA, the Provincial Court would still have jurisdiction to hear disputes between common-law spouses either under the Small Claims Act or under section 193 of the FLA.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the ex-boyfriend and held that the Small Claims Court indeed has jurisdiction to hear “pet custody” disputes, notwithstanding that there was also a family law claim that was subsequently started by the opposing side for the same issue.
In my experience, it is more efficient and fairer to litigate pet custody disputes in Small Claims Court, than in any other tribunal or level of court. There is opportunity for viva voce evidence where a court can assess credibility and review of documentation, without the cumbersome procedural and expensive steps that inevitably come with a Supreme Court action.
As family structures and the perception of companion animals in society continue to change, the legal system must adapt to address these evolving issues effectively. The outcome of this case may set an important precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future, balancing the need for efficient resolution of property disputes with the unique considerations involved in pet custody cases.
