How informal arrangements happen

In the equestrian world, informal co-ownership arrangements are common. A rider and coach agree to invest together in a promising green horse where one party contributes the purchase price and the other provides training or covers the cost of board because they own a farm. A parent and adult child pool resources to support a competitive career. A trainer foregoes a commission owed to them on a sale of a horse by accepting ownership of another horse. A rider provides labour to a stable owner or trainer in exchange for reduced or free board or lessons. These arrangements often begin with trust and excitement and rarely with a written agreement.

While the intent may be clear to those involved at the outset, the legal reality is more complex. Without documentation, these arrangements can and often lead to disputes over ownership, financial responsibility, liability, and decision-making.

If you are sharing ownership or value in a horse, put the arrangement in writing before money changes hands or training begins.

Why informal arrangements are risky

Ownership disputes

Under Ontario law, animals (including horses) are treated as personal property, so courts decide disputes on ownership, not “custody” or “access.” Ontario courts look to objective evidence such as who purchased the horse, who is named on the bill of sale, who consistently paid expenses (board, vet, training), and any express or implied agreement reflected in the parties’ conduct. They may also consider registration or breeding papers as evidentiary support, but those documents are not conclusive on their own.

When there is no written agreement, proving joint ownership becomes an exercise in reconstructing intent after the fact, using receipts, banking records, emails, or text messages, stable and show records, and witness testimony from coaches or barn staff. These sources are often incomplete or conflicting, turning the dispute into a fact‑intensive inquiry that can require extensive disclosure, examinations, and competing affidavits. The result is uncertainty and costs, where the outcome hinges on how convincingly the paper trail (and witnesses) establishes a shared ownership arrangement rather than mere assistance or informal support.

Financial liability

Shared ownership often implies shared expenses such as board, veterinary care, training, farrier services, and competition fees. But when one party stops contributing, the other may be left paying these costs with no clear legal basis to recover those amounts. Courts require objective proof of an agreement to share costs; after‑the‑fact claims about what was “understood” often fail because there is no documentation showing mutual intention or obligation.

Emergency situations can compound the risk. Horses can require urgent and expensive vet care, such as colic surgery or treatment following an injury or accident. Without agreed authority and cost‑allocation, disputes may arise after the fact about whether treatment was authorized and who should pay. Sorting that out typically involves document‑heavy evidence and costs can escalate quickly relative to the horse’s market value.

Decision-making conflicts

Training choices, competition schedules, rider selection, and decisions about when (or whether) to sell the horse are all areas where co‑owners frequently disagree. These issues are inherently subjective and often tied to differing goals: one party may view the horse as a long‑term project, while the other may see it as a resale prospect. Similarly, one owner may want the horse in a full‑training program with a professional rider, while the other prefers a more conservative approach to costs or risk.

There is no default process under Ontario law to break deadlocks. Courts will not create business rules for the parties or impose a compromise about training, showing, or selling. Instead, they will look strictly for evidence of what the parties agreed to, either expressly or through their conduct. In the absence of clear documentation, courts may default to treating the registered owner as having more control or may rely on fragmented evidence that leaves neither party fully satisfied.

Unintended partnerships and liability

Under Ontario’s Partnerships Act, co‑ownership by itself does not create a partnership. But when parties carry on a business in common with a view to profit (for example, a buy‑train‑sell program), a court can find a de facto partnership, which carries joint and several liability for partnership debts and obligations and allows one partner to bind the others in the ordinary course of the business. If resale is part of your plan, this risk merits deliberate structuring and clear documentation.

Risk of losing the horse

If the horse is registered in one person’s name and there is no written agreement reflecting the co-ownership arrangement, that person may be able to sell, transfer or move the horse without the other’s consent. The person with paper title and/or possession often has the practical advantage as stopping a sale or recovering the horse later can require urgent, costly litigation with no guaranteed result.

What a written agreement can do

A well drafted co-ownership or syndicate agreement replaces uncertainty with enforceable clarity. It can:

  • Record title and shares (including registration arrangements and restrictions on transfer);
  • Allocate costs and cash flow mechanics (what is covered by who; how and when payments are made; consequences for non-payment);
  • Define decision rights (training program; rider; relocation; show schedule) and sale mechanics (who can trigger a sale; consent thresholds; pricing/valuation method; timelines);
  • Authorize emergencies to allow parties to act quickly and avoid post-event disputes (who can approve treatment; spending caps without prior consent; insurance);
  • Address liability and structure (express non-partnership language when appropriate; indemnities; insurance); and
  • Build a dispute resolution path (escalation; mediation/arbitration) to reduce costly litigation.

Courts look for objective evidence of ownership and intent. A written agreement is that evidence.

Conclusion

Shared horse ownership can be financially efficient and strategically smart, but only when the terms are clear, documented, and enforceable. Informal arrangements shift control to whoever holds paper title or possession, increase the proof burden if a dispute arises, and can expose parties to unexpected liability and avoidable legal costs. In most cases, one short agreement costs less than a single contested motion and prevents the very disputes that drain time, money, and relationships.

If you are considering co-owning a horse, or already in an informal arrangement, it is time to formalize the terms. As an equestrian myself, I help clients draft clear, enforceable co-ownership and syndicate agreements that set expectations, allocate risks, and preserve your leverage.

If you need advice on agribusiness matters, our Agribusiness & Food Production Group at Miller Thomson is here to help.