An Alberta judge has divided up a group of cats between two feuding former spouses, saying neither gets to keep all of them because — in Alberta at least — pets aren’t the same as kids and legally shouldn’t be treated as such.
“Parenthood and pet ownership should not be conflated,” Justice Douglas Mah said in a written judgment last month in a case registered in Fort McMurray.
“The legal test applicable to determining parenting after separation should be different than that for deciding the placement of pets after separation.”
The ruling followed a protracted legal fight between Kishan Singh and Reba Smith.
According to the judgment, Singh and Smith lived together for about six years but separated in March 2023.
They acquired four cats together. Salem came from an online advertisement. Diablo was acquired from the SPCA. Zora and Samara were both rescued as strays.
The turning point came when Smith left the home after a heated dispute. When Smith returned the following day to retrieve her belongings, Mah wrote the cats were gone and had been “crated up and spirited away by Mr. Singh.”
She sued and got them back, only to have him file a counterclaim, leading to a lower court trial in November 2024 that resulted in each getting two cats. The trial judge at the time said both parties were capable of caring for the cats, and she couldn’t say who they’d be better off with.
Singh appealed the case to Mah in Court of King’s Bench, and both sides argued they should keep all four felines, as that was in the best interests of the pets.
Mah, in his judgment, acknowledged that considering “the best interests of the cat” may be gaining a legal foothold in other jurisdictions, but said the concept has no bearing in Alberta and left each with two cats.
He said he declined an argument by Singh to take “a more enlightened and cat-forward approach” in line with evolving societal values. And he said using the term “best interests” in reference to pets anthropomorphizes them.
Mah wrote the child test is different than the pet test for custody because “the sole job, function and duty of a parent is to provide the foundation for a successful life for the parent’s child.”
“On the other hand,” he wrote, “it is indisputable that pets are property. Further, the purpose of pet ownership is companionship.”
Mah wrote that while society doesn’t condone mistreatment or cruelty to animals, whether someone can demonstrate he or she is capable and willing to properly care for a cat or other pet should be, and is, a factor in determining ownership of a pet.
He said society also recognizes dogs and cats are able to feel emotions and may form real bonds with people and peer animals, which means it is also a factor when pet ownership is disputed.
But he said, “there must be an evolutionary line drawn somewhere.”
“I hope that does not sound harsh or that I am anti-animal rights. But apart from animal welfare laws, I don’t think the court should be concerned with inquiring into the emotional life of pets in the order of hamsters, parrots, reptiles and tropical fish in determining disputed ownership.”
Mah also rejected Singh’s appeal of the lower court’s decision not to award him costs, which he was seeking for a period he had been caring for all four of the cats.
He’d hired a cat-sitter to care for the animals while he was working out of town.
