An Alberta judge has distributed a group of cats between two former spouses who were in a dispute, ruling that neither party can keep all the cats because pets are legally considered property in the province and not equivalent to children.
Justice Douglas Mah emphasized in a recent written judgment from a case in Fort McMurray that there should be a distinction between parenting and pet ownership. The legal standards for determining child custody post-separation differ from those for deciding pet ownership arrangements.
The disagreement arose between Kishan Singh and Reba Smith, who had lived together for six years before separating in March 2023. They had four cats together: Salem, obtained from an online ad, Diablo from the SPCA, and Zora and Samara rescued as strays.
The conflict escalated when Smith left their residence following an argument, and upon her return the next day to collect her belongings, Mah noted that the cats were missing, taken away by Singh without her consent.
Smith filed a lawsuit and regained custody of the cats temporarily. However, Singh filed a counterclaim, leading to a trial in November 2024 where each party was granted custody of two cats. The trial judge determined that both individuals were equally capable of caring for the cats, making it difficult to decide who the cats would be better off with.
Singh appealed the ruling, leading the case to Justice Mah in the Court of King’s Bench. Both parties argued for full custody of all four cats, claiming it was in the cats’ best interest.
In his judgment, Mah acknowledged that the idea of considering “the best interests of the cat” is gaining traction elsewhere but stated it holds no relevance in Alberta law. Consequently, each former spouse was granted custody of two cats.
Mah highlighted that pets are considered property and rejected Singh’s plea for a more modern approach aligning with changing societal values, stating that attributing “best interests” to pets humanizes them.
While acknowledging the emotional bond between pets and humans, Mah underscored that ownership of pets is primarily based on the ability and willingness to provide proper care. He emphasized that although society recognizes the emotional capacity of dogs and cats, there are limits to the extent of inquiry into pets’ emotional lives when determining ownership.
Additionally, Mah dismissed Singh’s appeal for costs related to caring for all four cats, including expenses for a cat-sitter while he was away for work.