PETS: is'Ownership' still legally relevant?

Here is why we are posing this question (you can add your two cents HERE)

….BECAUSE of this news from Newfoundland…

Newswire

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. – In a case that divided Newfoundland and Labrador’s top court over what constitutes pet ownership, a man has been awarded sole custody of a dog following a break-up with his girlfriend.
David Baker and Kelsey Harmina purchased Mya, a Bernese mountain dog-poodle mix, in October 2014. After the couple split, they fought over custody of Mya in a case that eventually made it to the province’s Court of Appeal.
First, a small claims court judge determined that Baker was Mya’s sole owner, saying that dogs are considered personal property in the eyes of the law and that Baker paid for Mya.
Harmina appealed that decision, and a provincial Supreme Court judge found the small claims judge didn’t consider the full context of the relationship, concluding Mya should be owned jointly.
Baker then appealed that decision, and in a recently released ruling two of three Appeal Court judges agreed that the man is the dog’s sole owner, saying the small claims judge was right to rely on the traditional approach to determine ownership.
But the third judge dissented, saying the pair should have joint custody, because people often form strong emotional relationships with their pets.
(The Canadian Press)<

Which begs the question…. should companion animals be legally be seen as property OR should the bigger picture of the animal’s attachment, the financial means of a guardian and such considerations be considered when deciding on custody of said animal?  We would LOVE your comments… go to THIS POST and weigh in!!