Part 51 published on 01/08/15
Owner must remove dog that exceeds 25 pounds. No Human Rights entitlement
The condominium corporation’s rules prohibited dogs that exceeded 25 pounds. One of the residents had a dog that weighed over 25 pounds. She claimed that she needed the dog because of a disability; and she produced letters from a doctor to support her claim. The doctor’s letters stated that the resident had a medical condition and that the dog was an important part of managing her related stress. The condominium corporation asked to receive more detail (from the doctor) as to the nature of the disability and why it could not be accommodated by the resident having a smaller dog (i.e. a dog under 25 pounds). The condominium corporation asked for the resident’s consent to speak with the doctor (to obtain the requested additional detail). This consent was not provided.
The Court held that there was no proven disability for purposes of the Human Rights Code, and ordered that the dog be removed.
The Court said:
The test for disability…requires medical evidence, a diagnosis of some recognized mental disability, or “working diagnosis” or “articulation of clinically-significant symptoms” that has “specificity and substance”. Dr. Vanderwater’s medical evidence to assert (the resident’s) diagnosis did not provide that.
…
…there is no evidence before this court that Dr. Vanderwater’s generic labelling of (the resident’s) diagnosis as a “medical condition” falls under the definition of “disability” within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Code.
…
They should have provided the requested information. The (condominium corporation) was entitled to adequate, objective medical information with a diagnosis of a mental disability and information about (the resident’s) disability-related needs. By refusing to provide such information, the respondents failed to cooperate in the accommodation process.
[Editorial Note: I note that there was no discussion, in this case, of the customer service standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Perhaps the parties concluded that it didn’t apply in this case. ]