Part 3 published on 01/08/03
Pet prohibition in declaration enforced
The declaration of this apartment condominium prohibited pets. This was brought to the owner’s attention at the time the owner purchased a unit in the condominium. The owner had a greyhound dog, and wished to keep it in the condominium.
The owner’s family physician said that the owner was suffering from stress-induced depression and that having to give up the dog would add to her stress and would adversely affect her mental health.
The court ordered that the dog be removed. The court said that the condominium by-laws and rules must be reasonable in order to be enforced. However, a provision in a declaration is presumed to be valid and need not be shown to be reasonable.
The court said that this would not result in a violation of the Human Rights Code, in this case. The court said that there is no breach of the Human Rights Code unless the removal of the pet would effectively prohibit the owner from living in the condominium. In other words, the owner would have to show that the owner was dependent upon the dog and therefore needed the dog to be able to live in the unit. The court said that there was no such evidence in this case.
Finally, the court found that the condominium corporation had not “slept on its rights” and accordingly was not guilty of undue delay in the enforcement of the provisions of the declaration.
Editorial Comment:
This last issue – delay on the part of the condominium corporation – is a common defence raised by owners. Condominium corporations must be very careful to move with haste in the enforcement of their governing documents.