Family court cases are quite varied. Some involve straight couples. Some same-sex. Some married. Some common law. Some no children. Some blended families. Some complex or foreign assets. More recently, the asset being debated in court is the family pet, such as a cat or dog.
But then there is Parker v. King, 2025 ONSC 6813 https://canlii.ca/t/kgxgb – the Ontario family law case in which the court was asked to decide whether a party could attend their court hearing accompanied by Rico, a pet snake.
Rico is not just an ordinary snake. In this family court case, Rico is an Albino Ball Python and, purportedly, the husband’s service animal.
Yes. You heard that right. A snake. In family court. As a service pet.
On August 18, 2025, the husband appeared at a Case Conference in the Brockville courthouse with Rico, and asserted that he needed his snake for his mental well-being. He even presented documentation suggesting that Rico was an accredited service animal.
Unsurprisingly, the wife objected. She later brought a motion asking for a court order that Rico be prohibited from attending future court appearances.
At first blush, the case sounds like a joke. But beneath the cinematic fact pattern lies a serious question: how does a judge balance accessibility and accommodation against the need to protect the integrity, safety and fairness of the justice process?
The answer from Justice MacLeod in Parker v. King was clear: accommodation is real, but it is not limitless. It must be grounded in evidence. It must be connected to a disability. And it cannot be used as a litigation tactic to intimidate another party.
The wife’s evidence was that the “doctor” who provided the note was not registered with any applicable Ontario college, and that the purported service-animal certificate appeared to come from a non-existent national registry. She further alleged that Rico was not being used for accommodation at all, but as a mechanism of intimidation, particularly because the husband knew his wife had a phobia of snakes.
The husband, although served with the motion materials, did not respond and filed no evidence.
Unsurprisingly, Justice MacLeod found that Rico was not a service animal within the meaning of any applicable standard or legislation. The court recognized that service animals may be necessary for individuals with physical or mental disabilities, but there was no evidence before the court that the husband had a disability requiring accommodation, nor that the presence of a snake was the necessary accommodation. The court also held that where an animal interferes with the administration of justice or negatively affects other participants in the justice system, its presence in the courtroom may be prohibited.
Ontario law does recognize service animals. Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act framework [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11], an animal may qualify as a service animal where it is readily identifiable as being used for disability-related reasons, such as through visual indicators, or where the person provides documentation from a regulated health professional confirming that the animal is required because of a disability.
But that legal protection is not a blank cheque. The phrase “service animal” is not a magic password. The court was not required to accept, at face value, a questionable medical note, a questionable certificate, and an animal whose presence allegedly had the effect of intimidating the opposing party.
Family court is not merely a venue for legal argument. It is often the physical place where trauma, fear, power imbalance, coercive control, emotional volatility and years of relational dysfunction enter the courtroom wearing formal clothing. Judges must manage not only legal rights, but the conditions under which vulnerable people can safely participate in the process.
That is what makes Parker v. King more than a curious “snake in court” story. It is a reminder that procedure can be weaponized. Disclosure can be weaponized. Delay can be weaponized. Parenting time can be weaponized. Even an accommodation request can be weaponized if it is unsupported, strategically timed, and directed at a known vulnerability of the other party.
In this case, the judge’s order was appropriately measured. Rico was banned from future attendance, and the husband was prohibited from bringing Rico or any other service animal into the courthouse without leave. But the court did not permanently shut the door on a legitimate accommodation request. Justice MacLeod expressly left open the possibility that a future judge could consider proper evidence that the husband had a condition requiring accommodation, including, if appropriate, the presence of a service animal.
Humour aside, this case exposes a broader problem: Ontario’s service-animal regime can be confusing. Unlike guide dogs for visually impaired persons, many service animals do not require formal certification by a recognized training body. That is not necessarily a flaw; many people with invisible disabilities legitimately require animals for support, and the law must remain flexible enough to protect them. But flexibility creates space for misuse. A person seeking an accommodation should be treated respectfully. But respect does not require credulity. Courts are entitled to ask whether the legal test has been met. They are entitled to examine whether the documentation is legitimate. They are entitled to consider the impact on the other party. And they are entitled to protect the proceeding from tactics that undermine fairness.
For family lawyers, mediators, arbitrators and judges, the lesson is practical: accommodation requests should be addressed early, transparently, and with proper documentation. If a party requires a support person, service animal, interpreter, modified seating arrangement, remote attendance, breaks, or any other disability-related measure, that should be raised before the attendance, not sprung on the other side at the courtroom door.
Sorry Rico.
This article was recently published on LexisNexis’ Law360: https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/2476669/parker-v-king-accommodation-fairness-of-process-and-rico-the-python
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, Acc.D.C., is a full-time Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Share this article on: