Award for mental distress after deaths of pet rabbits

I sometimes see people online confidently assert that a pet is considered property, and if it is injured or killed, its owner is entitled only to the cost of replacing it. And yes, that was the case for centuries. But the law does respond to societal changes, eventually, and in Ontario, pet owners are now awarded damages for pain and suffering after the loss of a pet.

Birmingham Business Centre Inc. et al. v. Natalia Cach (2025 CanLII 120697 (ON SCSM)) was an assessment of damages hearing arising from the deaths of two pet rabbits (Leo, a lion-head rabbit, and Ruby, a Himalayan rabbit) and damage to other property. The plaintiffs were Birmingham Business Centre Inc. ("Birmingham"), its sole director Christine Sobolak (who was also the property manager and owner of the rabbits), and others connected to Birmingham. The defendant, Natalia Cach, had been noted in default, having been duly served the previous month. Because she was in default, the plaintiffs were not required to prove liability, only the quantum of their damages.

Facts

Birmingham owned a commercial property that Leo and Ruby called home. Their living space included a well-appointed indoor common area featuring an indoor garden with a koi pond, waterfall, bridge, and rabbit enclosure — an amenity enjoyed by the building's tenants and their guests — as well as an outdoor rabbit hutch. The rabbits were described as an integral part of the property's community.

In October and November 2021, Ms. Cach was hired by Ms. Sobolak to do painting and other maintenance work at the property. Because the employee who normally cared for the rabbits was away, Ms. Cach also agreed to look after Leo and Ruby (as well as Ms. Sobolak's cat) while Ms. Sobolak was away to close up her cottage for the season.

Ms. Cach owned two dogs: a small French bulldog named Lucie, and a large mixed pit bull and boxer named Vinny. On a prior occasion, she had brought both dogs to the property, prompting Ms. Sobolak to issue a clear directive that the dogs were never to be brought back. Ms. Cach had herself told Ms. Sobolak that the larger dog was in heat, difficult to control, and prone to attacking other animals. When handing over the property keys, Ms. Sobolak reminded Ms. Cach of this prohibition, and Ms. Cach agreed to comply.

On the evening of Friday, November 5, 2021, Ms. Cach brought both dogs to the property anyway. The larger dog mauled and killed both Leo and Ruby. The attack also destroyed the indoor garden. Ms. Cach also held a party over the weekend in a furnished vacant unit at the property, during which office furniture was damaged (scratched up by the dogs).

Despite exchanging casual text messages with Ms. Sobolak over the weekend, Ms. Cach said nothing about the rabbits' deaths. It was only on Monday morning that she informed Ms. Sobolak by text. Ms. Sobolak arrived at the office to find Leo and Ruby dead in a box on her desk and the indoor garden in ruins. The incident attracted media attention, with one headline reading: "Women distraught after two prized bunnies killed by suspected pit bull in horrific attack."

Legal analysis

The court addressed a fundamental question in Canadian tort law: the extent to which damages for the death of a pet can extend beyond simple property loss to include compensation for emotional distress and mental anguish.

Deputy Judge Hum acknowledged the traditional common law position that pets are classified as personal property, with damages ordinarily limited to their replacement value. However, the court surveyed Ontario decisions that contain exceptions to this rule:

In Sommerville v Molloy et al. ([1999] O.J. No. 4208 (SCJ)), the court awarded $20,000 following a pit bull attack that killed the plaintiff's chihuahua before his eyes and caused him physical and emotional injury, with liability grounded in the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

In Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd. (2006 CanLII 2049 (ON SCDC)), the Divisional Court confirmed that mental distress is a proper head of damages in pet-loss cases "when the appropriate underlying circumstances are proven to exist," rejecting the view of a pet being "just another consumer product."

In Newell et al. v. Canadian Pacific Airlines (1976 CanLII 820 (ON SC), 14 O.R. (2d) 752), the owners were awarded $500 for mental distress after their dogs were killed and injured in a cargo hold, where the defendant had contractually assumed care for the animals and was aware that the owners' emotional well-being was at stake.

In Brown et al. v. Edwards et al. ([2005] O.J. No. 1800 (SCJ)), a couple whose Dalmatian was killed while in the care of a veterinarian were awarded $3,500 for distress, plus $1,300 for the cost of a replacement puppy.

In Arnold v. Bekkers Pet Care ([2010] O.J. No. 2153), the court affirmed that the deep human-animal bond means damages can exceed the replacement cost and that mental distress damages may be appropriate — though on the facts they were barred by an exclusion clause.

The Small Claims Court concluded that the law in Ontario does recognise mental distress as a compensable head of damages in pet-death cases if the appropriate underlying circumstances exist.

Assessment of damages

Property and out-of-pocket losses

Ms. Sobolak claimed $19,205.69 in out-of-pocket expenses, supported by receipts and detailed testimony. The court allowed most of this amount, with two deductions:

1. A claim of $6,225.96 for an upgraded security system was almost entirely disallowed. The court found no reasonable evidentiary basis to hold Ms. Cach liable for a security upgrade. Post-incident text communications from Ms. Cach showed remorse, and there was no evidence beyond speculation that she would return to cause further harm. The court allowed $200 for new locks, replacing the full security system claim.

2. After deducting the security system and adding the $200 for locks, the remaining amount of $13,179.73 was further reduced by a general discount of 15% to account for expenses that appeared to relate to pets other than Leo and Ruby or that were otherwise not directly tied to the deaths or property damage. This left assessed property and out-of-pocket damages of $11,202.77.

The court noted that this figure already included expenses Ms. Sobolak had incurred for her own mental health support following the rabbits' deaths.

Claims by other plaintiffs

The court declined to award damages to the other plaintiffs. None of them gave evidence, none filed affidavits, and no invoices or expenses were linked to them. The $11,202.77 was awarded jointly to Birmingham Business Centre Inc. and Christine Sobolak, with the court noting that since Ms. Sobolak is the sole directing mind of Birmingham, the apportionment between the two was left to her.

Emotional distress and mental anguish

The court found that the underlying circumstances required by Ferguson were clearly present. Leo and Ruby were not merely companion animals for Ms. Sobolak personally. They were embedded in the community of the property and valued by the tenants. Even four years after their deaths, Ms. Sobolak was visibly distraught while giving evidence.

The circumstances were aggravated by Ms. Cach's deliberate conduct: She had been warned multiple times not to bring her dogs to the property precisely because of the danger they posed to the rabbits, she had agreed to the prohibition, and she violated it anyway. She then failed to supervise her dogs, resulting in the readily foreseeable death of both animals. The manner in which Ms. Sobolak learned of the deaths (arriving at her office to find her dead pets in a box on her desk, after Ms. Cach had spent the weekend at the property without disclosing what had happened) compounded the trauma significantly.

The court awarded $5,000 to Ms. Sobolak for mental distress, on top of the mental health expenses already included in the property damages award.

The court also noted that even if it had not awarded this sum under mental distress, it would have done so as aggravated damages. Ms. Cach's conduct was characterized as egregious and high-handed, and it warranted aggravated damages to compensate for the additional psychological harm caused by her conduct.

Judgment

Deputy Judge Hum awarded the following:

- $11,202.77 in property and out-of-pocket damages, jointly to Birmingham Business Centre Inc. and Christine Sobolak;
- $5,000 in mental distress damages, to Christine Sobolak alone;
- Prejudgment interest running from November 5, 2021, and post-judgment interest; and
- $2,500 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and representation fee, payable by the defendant to Birmingham and Ms. Sobolak.

The total monetary award (excluding interest) was $18,702.77, well below the $35,000 originally claimed, primarily because the court disallowed the security system upgrade, applied a general 15% discount to remaining expenses, and declined to extend emotional distress damages to the other plaintiffs for lack of evidence.

Significance

The case is a notable application of the line of Ontario authorities recognizing that the human-animal bond has legal weight beyond simple property valuation. It confirms that when a pet is killed due to deliberate or egregious misconduct, and where the owner's emotional attachment and distress are clearly established, Ontario courts will award mental distress damages. If the misconduct is 'only' negligent, you might want to hire me to better the odds of a successful outcome.