15/10/2021 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 76 published on 01/12/2021
CAT makes orders in relation to nuisance dog
The CAT determined that the Respondent’s dog was a nuisance (in contravention of the corporation’s Declaration and Rules) because the dog was being allowed to urinate and defecate on the balcony (with resulting disturbance to the resident below).
The CAT said:
All that is clear is that the Respondent has allowed her dog to defecate and urinate on her balcony, that she has not cleaned up the resulting mess, and that this has a significant impact on the neighbour below. This is unacceptable and must be remedied.
The evidence included some documentation indicating that the dog in question might be a service animal or support animal. The CAT nevertheless ordered the condominium corporation to first try to resolve the dispute through communications with the Respondent owner. But the CAT went on to say as follows:
If the Board determines that further communication with the Respondent is not appropriate, or if after such communication it is still satisfied that the dog is a nuisance and must be removed, it may give notice in writing to the Respondent giving her at least 30 days to make arrangements to remove the dog from the condominium.
In terms of costs:
The CAT ordered the Respondent to cover part of the corporation’s pre-CAT costs (for two lawyer’s letters sent to the Respondent), based upon an indemnification provision in the corporation’s Declaration. The CAT only ordered the Respondent to pay for the second lawyer’s letter. The CAT did not order the Respondent to pay for the first letter because the condominium corporation had not made previous efforts to communicate with the Respondent (before engaging a lawyer). The CAT said:
As a general rule, a condominium should make good faith attempts to resolve a dispute with an owner before involving counsel with associated legal costs.
Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 490 v Paikin (CAT)