Last month, a Saskatoon judge ruled in a Divorce case that almost turned into a custody battle that while Dogs are often seen and treated as members of the family, they are however not legally equitable to a child and holds no familial rights.
The (now ex) wife was posing to create custody of the furry friend and grant visitation rights when Justice Richard Danyliuk outlined that dogs are more akin to property than child as children are not purchased from breeders, we don’t breed our children to ensure good bloodlines or to seek profit, we do not perform a cost/benefit analysis of performing a medical procedure on children when ill, and we do not engage in violence or muzzle up our children when they are outruly or unresponsive.
More humorously, Justice Danyliuk outlined that the case was a waste of the court’s time even surmounting it with an analogy to family knives stating:
“Am I to make an order that one party have interim possession of [for example] the family butter knives but, due to a deep attachment to both butter and those knives, order that the other party have limited access to those knives for 1.5 hours per week to butter his or her toast?”
This being said, Justice Danyliuk did explain that the case could continue forward as a matter of property ownership but to expect some resistance from other judges if arguments circle back to the notion of familial custody issues. He also has granted custody of the dogs to the wife for the time being until the divorce is officially settled.
For those of you who wish to read the full case I have provided the following CanLi link