Justice Richard Danyliuk, sitting in the Provincial Court in Saskatoon, was forced to tell the pair that a dog “enjoys no familial rights” and that, unlike dogs, “we tend not to purchase our children from breeders”.

He went on to list numerous ways in which dogs differ from people.

But far from finding the case funny, he said it was “demeaning for the court and legal counsel to have these parties call upon these legal and court resources because they are unable to settle … an issue unworthy of this expenditure of time, money and public resources”.

In a warning to others, Justice Danyliuk said: “Both parties should bear in mind that if the court cannot reach a decision on where the dogs go, it is open to the court under the legislation to order them sold and the proceeds split — something I am sure neither party wants.”

He eventually ruled that the dogs should remain with the wife until the divorce is completed - and made no ruling on visitation rights.