Pets in Wills: The Next Step in B.C. Estate Law

Until recently, the law in British Columbia treated pets much like furniture or vehicles—as personal property forming part of a deceased’s estate. Estate case law such as Carvalho v. Verma, 2024 ONSC 1183, reaffirmed this traditional stance, with the Court noting that dogs are “personal property much like other chattels.” Yet even in that case, the Court acknowledged that animals are “indivisible” and involve emotional and ethical considerations far beyond those associated with inanimate property.

This shift reflects a broader societal view: animals occupy a special category. Courts and lawmakers increasingly recognize their sentience and the unique human–animal bond (See recent amendments to the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c. 25; Atwal v. Randhawa, 2023 BCPC 238; Sagoo v. Murray, 2016 BCPC 376; Lan v. Nand, 2015 BCPC 15-51173; Ziggy’s Rescue v. Penko and Dwyer, 2022 BCPC 212; Gass v. Hill, 2025 BCSC 1602; Bayat v. Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619, and more).

The law now faces the challenge of adapting doctrines written for property to meet the moral and practical realities of pet ownership or guardianship. Estate law in British Columbia, governed by the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, SBC 2009, c.13 (“WESA”), may become a key area where these evolving perspectives will take root.

The Legal Framework Under WESA

Under WESA, several definitions frame how property is treated upon death. A “beneficiary” includes a person named, or with a beneficial interest, in a will or trust, and “estate” means the property of the deceased. Animals, being classified as property, cannot legally be beneficiaries of a will. Similarly, section 44 provides that any undisposed property in an estate passes under intestacy rules, or, if no heirs exist, to the Crown under the Escheat Act. This underscores the importance of deliberate planning for pets—without clear provisions, they may be treated as just another asset or, worse, forgotten in distribution.

The Modern Imperative: Including Pets in Estate Planning

As an estate practitioner, please do not fall behind by forgetting about your clients’ furry companions. Ask your clients whether they wish to include their pets explicitly in their wills. This can prevent disputes akin to “pet custody” battles and ensures the animal’s continued care. Although an animal cannot inherit, WESA offers some flexibility through human intermediaries and trust structures.

Under section 60 of WESA, a will may be challenged by a spouse or child for inadequate provision, meaning an excessive allocation for pet care could face scrutiny. That said, what is “excessive” for one person will not be the same for another. To date, there is no exact dollar amount identified as “reasonable” for a pet guardian to leave behind. However, enough money should be set aside to ensure that the animal(s) thrive, instead of only covering necessities.

Section 62 allows the court to examine the will-maker’s reasons for gift distributions, including supporting statements or evidence. Potentially, this can include letters from physicians or mental health professionals describing the animal’s therapeutic or emotional support value, or generally, how important animals are in the will-maker’s life. Including such documentation may strengthen the rationale for pet-related gifts and minimize the risk of variation claims.

Options for Providing for Pets

Three main options allow owners to provide financial care for their animals after death:

1. Leave money to a trusted person for the pet’s care.
   This is straightforward but depends entirely on the human beneficiary’s integrity and willingness to use the funds as intended.
2. Create a purpose trust for the pet’s benefit.
   Under the Perpetuity Act, RSBC 1996, c. 358, s. 24 validates noncharitable trusts that exist for a specific purpose, such as pet care, so long as they operate within 21 years. The trust grants the trustee the power to apply estate funds for the specified purpose rather than for personal benefit. Section 15 of the Act lets executors or trustees apply to court for guidance on the trust’s validity under the rule against perpetuities.
3. Gift the pet itself to a caregiver and leave funds for its upkeep.
   This approach combines ownership transfer with financial support. Estimating costs realistically matters as dogs and cats often require at least $80,000 to $200,000 (and likely more) in lifetime care, while horses may need at least $20,000 per year or more.

The will-maker should also name alternate caregivers, specify care instructions, and consider leaving a “letter of wishes” outside the will. This letter, while not legally binding, helps executors understand the deceased’s preferences regarding the pet’s diet, medical needs, bonded companions, and general well-being. Naming species rather than individual animals keeps the document relevant if pets change over time.

Broader Considerations and Public Policy

Some will-makers attempt to include directions for euthanizing a pet upon their death. Such provisions may be contrary to public policy and may not be enforced. Instead, clients should be directed toward humane alternatives like the RAPS Pet Survivor Program, which ensures lifetime care for surviving pets.

Because the Perpetuity Act limits noncharitable trusts to 21 years, long-lived animals such as parrots or turtles may outlive the trust term. In such cases, lawyers may invoke WESA s. 62 and Perpetuity Act s. 15 to seek court guidance or consider alternative arrangements, such as charitable remainder provisions.

The Future of Estate Law and Animal Status

The growing recognition of animals as “special property” introduces subtle but significant changes in estate planning. While companion animals remain legally classified as property, courts increasingly treat them with sensitivity reflective of their role in human lives. In the writer’s opinion, estate law in British Columbia should accommodate this nuanced view, balancing formal property principles with compassion and practicality.

Comprehensive planning for pets not only safeguards their welfare but also helps preserve family harmony. In a province and country where animal law continues to evolve, incorporating companion animals into wills is no longer just an act of kindness—it is prudent legal foresight.