Two dogs, a divorce in progress, and a wife who had to leave the house without them. By safeguard order, the Quebec Superior Court sets up week-on/week-off shared custody of the animals, with handovers at a highway rest stop, until trial. Ten years ago, such an order would have been almost unthinkable. Here is where Quebec law now stands on what happens to pets when a couple separates, married or not.
When a couple separates, people think about the children, the house, dividing the property. But for many, the question that hurts most is elsewhere: who keeps the dog? For a long time, Quebec law answered in one line. A dog is movable property; it belongs to whoever’s name is on the purchase contract, end of story. A recent Superior Court decision shows how much that answer has changed. In Droit de la famille — 261055, rendered on July 9, 2026 by the Honourable Louis Marquis (2026 QCCS 2721), the court granted both spouses, in the middle of their divorce and by a simple safeguard order, shared custody of their two dogs.
The facts: two dogs left behind in the family home
The parties are married and in divorce proceedings. A first judgment on provisional measures, rendered in December 2025, had settled the urgent issues pending trial. As for the dogs, referred to as A and B in the judgment, the judge had then decided they would remain at the family residence, the place they belonged, while noting that the spouses disagreed about who owned them and that the trial judge would settle that question. Since the husband stayed in the house, the dogs stayed with him.
Six months later, the wife, who had to move out and is representing herself, returns to court. Among other things, she asks to regain possession of the dogs in order, in her words, to recover some semblance of a life. She explains that she has been grieving since losing contact with A and B, who comforted her during the anxiety attacks and emotional distress she suffers from. She files two documents: a report from her family doctor dated June 3, 2026, which finds that her health has deteriorated since the December judgment and draws a link between the dogs’ presence and her psychological stability, and a report from her psychologist, who writes that she is struggling to grieve the loss of her main source of support.
The husband objects. He points out that certain passages of the two reports look very much alike, which in his view undermines their credibility. He also stresses that he is the one who has the dogs and cares for them, and that he is deeply attached to them.
What the court decided
Justice Marquis sides with the wife, up to a point. On the credibility of the reports, he chooses, at the safeguard stage, to rely on the integrity of the professionals who signed them, since neither was cross-examined. He accepts the wife’s sincerity and the link between the dogs and her health. He also accepts a specific argument: the fact that A and B are not officially registered as assistance dogs does not prevent the court from viewing them as such. He relies here on a 2025 decision of Quebec’s Human Rights Tribunal, Martin-Desgagné c. 9444-0831 Québec inc., which involved an assistance dog for a person living with post-traumatic stress.
But the judge also weighs the husband’s attachment; he has had the dogs for months and looks after them. So he opts for a middle path: week-on/week-off shared custody, from Friday at 4 p.m. to the following Friday at 4 p.m., with the dogs exchanged, failing agreement, at a rest stop beside a highway exit. The arrangement begins on July 17, 2026, with the wife taking the first week. The court describes it as fair, respectful of the dogs’ way of life, adapted to the new and legitimate circumstances raised by the wife, without prejudice to the husband’s attachment, and workable.
The wife’s other requests did not fare as well. Her request to raise her spousal support from $1,000 to $4,600 a month was dismissed for lack of urgency and because the spouses’ net incomes are comparable. Her request for a $15,000 provision for costs (an amount one spouse can be ordered to advance to the other so that the other can assert their rights) was also dismissed, in particular because it covered fees already incurred and paid, which the case law allows only in very exceptional circumstances.
Why this decision stands out: the safeguard stage
What is striking here is not just the result, but when it happened. A safeguard order is an exceptional measure. It exists to settle, temporarily, a situation that cannot wait: the applicant must show urgency, an apparent right, and serious harm if the court does not step in. In family matters, courts are known to be cautious at this stage. Even where children are concerned, it is generally difficult to have shared custody set up by safeguard order, because judges prefer not to disturb the existing situation before hearing full evidence.
Yet here, the court found the situation serious enough to change, before trial, the arrangement it had itself set six months earlier, and to put in place true shared custody of animals. What tipped the balance was the medical and psychological evidence linking the wife’s health to the dogs’ presence. In other words, ordinary affection for a pet was not what carried the day; it was a documented need, supported by neutral professionals, in a context where the bond with the dogs resembled that of a person with an assistance animal. Every case turns on its own facts, and it would be unwise to conclude that shared custody of a pet is easy to obtain at the interim stage. But a door that used to be locked tight is now open.
Where we came from: the animal as mere movable property
To appreciate the distance travelled, look back. In 2003, in a legal separation case, a husband sought shared custody of an African grey parrot with an acknowledged therapeutic role. The court refused to rule: a parrot is movable property, not a child, and it falls outside the rules allowing a court to allocate the use of household furniture. That reasoning held for years. As recently as 2021 and 2022, the Superior Court was repeating, in divorce files, that dogs are neither children nor family patrimony assets, that the court has no jurisdiction to decide their “custody” or grant visiting rights in their best interests, and that disputes are resolved on ownership alone. One judge even wrote, in 2022, that the concept of custody of animals simply does not exist, neither in the Divorce Act nor in Quebec civil law, and that it is up to the legislature to change things.
The legislature had, in fact, already moved. In 2015, with the Animal Welfare and Safety Act, it added article 898.1 to the Civil Code of Québec, which declares that animals are not property, that they are sentient beings, and that they have biological imperatives. The catch is the second paragraph of that same article: the rules applicable to property continue to apply to animals. For years, the courts clung mostly to that second paragraph. The first remained, in practice, symbolic.
The turning point: giving article 898.1 real force
The tide began to turn around 2023 and 2024, under the influence of legal scholarship in particular, notably the work of Professor Alain Roy and of Professors Michaël Lessard and Marie-Andrée Plante, who argue that the first paragraph of article 898.1 must have real force: an animal’s custody should be arranged so as to respect its sentience and biological imperatives, which may include shared custody, or even having the animal follow a child who is in shared custody.
Three recent decisions mark this evolution. In Fortier c. Geoffroy-Béliveau, in 2024, the Court of Québec issued a safeguard order giving two former common-law partners, co-owners of a dog, alternating possession of the animal, one month each, with handovers in the neutral exchange zone of a police station. The judge expressly recognized that article 898.1 requires the court to consider the animal’s sentience and biological imperatives. In Droit de la famille — 25605, in May 2025, the Superior Court, dealing with common-law partners and their teenage daughter, ordered that the family’s two cats and dog remain in the family home with the child, and that her two horses stay at their equestrian centre, relying on both article 898.1 and the child’s best interests: the judge stated that he could grant a right of use of an animal during the proceedings, whether or not ownership was in dispute, when the animal’s sentient nature and biological needs justify it. Then, in Droit de la famille — 251080, in July 2025, the Superior Court delivered the most complete synthesis to date: the ownership-based approach remains the baseline, but it can be modulated. Beyond title, the court may now consider the bonds between the animal and family members, including other animals, each spouse’s living environment, availability and motivation to care for it, and any neglect or mistreatment. In some circumstances, it may grant custody or a right of use of the animal to a spouse who does not own it.
That same 2025 decision, however, draws a clear line: article 898.1 does not allow a court to transfer ownership of an animal from one spouse to the other. The court will not read into the article what it does not say. Title therefore still matters, and it still decides many cases. Another view also persists in the case law: several judges continue to believe that it is for the legislature, not the courts, to create a genuine pet custody regime, as British Columbia did in 2024 by amending its family law statute to set out specific criteria. The debate is not over, and the Quebec Court of Appeal has yet to address the question head-on.
Married or common-law: does it make a difference?
Good news for common-law partners: on this particular point, marital status changes little. Article 898.1 applies to everyone. Fortier and Droit de la famille — 25605 involved common-law partners, while Droit de la famille — 251080 and the case discussed here involved spouses in divorce. In every case, the court first looked at ownership of the animal (who bought it, whose name is on the invoices, who pays the vet, whether there is co-ownership), and then, increasingly, at the concrete situation of the animal and the people around it.
One nuance is worth noting for married spouses: the Civil Code allows a court, in divorce or legal separation, to grant one spouse the use or ownership of the furniture serving the household. Some scholars would like pets to fall into that category, which would give married people one more tool. The prevailing case law refuses, for now: a dog neither “furnishes” nor “decorates” the residence. It is attached to the family, not to the house.
Another tool is available to everyone: a contract. In McGrath Courchesne c. Côté, in 2023, the Superior Court agreed to look at shared custody of a dog because it flowed from an agreement signed at the breakup, while concluding that the agreement, having no fixed term, could be terminated on reasonable notice, which the owner had done when she moved to British Columbia. A well-drafted agreement, spelling out its duration, the arrangements, and what happens if someone moves, remains the best protection.
Key takeaways
If you are separating and worried about a pet, know first that ownership still counts: keep adoption contracts, vet invoices, the municipal licence, and proof of payment. A name on a document is not decisive on its own, but the whole set of indicators often is. Know next that ownership is no longer the only criterion: the court may consider who actually cares for the animal, its living environment, its bonds with the children and other animals, and its sentience. If your health depends on the animal’s presence, as in the case discussed here, serious medical or psychological evidence will make all the difference, including for obtaining a quick interim measure. Know finally that courts do not take kindly to using a pet as a bargaining chip: in 2025, a judge called it unacceptable to exploit a spouse’s attachment to his dog in order to extract a favourable financial settlement, adding that such conduct runs against the animal’s own biological imperatives.
The safest route remains a written agreement, ideally reached at the time of the breakup, with precise terms. Failing that, Quebec courts have now shown that, when needed, they know how to organize a dog’s life between two homes, even while waiting for trial.
This column is published for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Because every situation is unique, you should consult a lawyer for advice tailored to your own case. Feel free to contact Virtulex avocats to discuss your situation.
William Desrochers, Attorney, Virtulex avocats — www.virtulexavocats.com
Reference: Droit de la famille — 261055, 2026 QCCS 2721, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Saint-François, the Honourable Louis Marquis, J.S.C., July 9, 2026 — read the judgment on CanLII (in French).
Other decisions mentioned: Droit de la famille — 251080, 2025 QCCS 2859; Fortier c. Geoffroy-Béliveau, 2024 QCCQ 2809; McGrath Courchesne c. Côté, 2023 QCCS 3836; Droit de la famille — 25605, 2025 QCCS 2978.
