Part 37 published on 01/02/12
Court orders removal of “nuisance dog”
The condominium corporation had received complaints about the owner’s dog barking and urinating on the balcony. [The urine had dripped onto the terrace of the unit below.] The owner failed to respond properly to the corporation’s requests that she address the complaints. In accordance with the rules, the corporation then asked that the owner remove the dog, but she refused. The corporation ultimately applied to Court for an order removing the dog and the Court granted the Order. The Court also ordered that the corporation’s cleaning costs, as well as legal costs related to failed mediation and arbitration efforts, be added to the owner’s common expenses.
The Court’s decision included the following:
I accept the general proposition, set out earlier, that on an application of this kind, a Court can and should consider whether the Board has acted capriciously and unreasonably. Where that discretion has been properly exercised, however, the Court should not substitute its discretion for the discretion of those charged with the management of the corporation.
Mediation had failed because the owner had refused to participate in mediation. In the circumstances, the Court was not prepared to order the parties to arbitrate the dispute. The Court said:
No useful purpose would be served by directing the parties to arbitration. The (owner) has already refused to participate in the dispute resolution process under the Condominium Act. Mediation has been attempted and failed… There has been a full airing of the evidence and the law. Very significant costs have been incurred. Arbitration will only add a further level of costs and further delay.