Following their separation, the parties brought a motion to determine ownership and possession of their two dogs, Jazz and Jetta.
The court rejected the traditional, narrow approach to pet ownership that focuses solely on who paid the purchase price, adopting instead a broader, contemporary approach that considers the full context of the parties' relationship with the animals, including care and maintenance.
Finding that both parties were significantly vested in the dogs and had contributed equally to their upkeep, the court concluded the dogs were jointly owned.
As the parties could not share the dogs, the court divided them, awarding Jazz to the respondent and Jetta to the applicant.
