23/09/2024– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 88 published on 01/12/2024
Owner entitled to one emotional support animal. Tribunal declines to order a number of conditions requested by Corporation.
The condominium corporation’s governing documents (Declaration and Rules) prohibited pets. However, the Tribunal held that the owner was entitled to keep his dog as an emotional support animal.
The Tribunal said:
In conclusion, I find that Mr. Zhan does have a disability as defined by the Code, and that his dog is the required accommodation as recommended by his physician. I further conclude that there is no evidence before me to suggest that allowing Mr. Zhan’s dog to remain would cause any undue hardship to MTCC 993. For these reasons, Mr. Zhan is entitled to keep his dog in his unit as an accommodation under the Code.
The Tribunal also ordered that certain conditions apply to the dog, but declined to order a number of conditions requested by the condominium corporation. The Tribunal said:
As noted earlier in this decision, while both parties have exchanged letters and emails regarding Mr. Zhan’s request and need for accommodation there has been no meaningful discussion between the parties about the request for accommodation. Such discussions would typically allow the parties to explore together any need for conditions to be placed on the accommodation. In absence of such discussion, I must now make a decision on the conditions as requested by MTCC 993 but note that Mr. Zhan was given the opportunity as part of this hearing process to submit his response to the proposed conditions and he did not do so. Having reviewed the list and the rationale (where provided) for the various requests, I find the following conditions to be within a range of reasonable outcomes and will order the following:
- Zhan will notify the board, in writing, if/when he no longer requires the dog to treat his disability‑related needs and, contemporaneously, he will remove the dog from the premises.
- When in the common areas, Mr. Zhan’s dog must be either crated, carried or placed on a leash.
I find that there has not been sufficient rationale provided for the need for several of the other requested conditions, some of which do not appear to align with the principles of accommodation, including the respect for dignity and integration and full participation as described in the OHRC Policy. In this case, some of the proposed conditions seem to create barriers to accommodation rather than address any real and verified need for these conditions. Thus, I decline to impose the following conditions:
- That the accommodation be conditional and the need for the accommodation be affirmed annually by requiring Mr. Zhan to submit a letter each year from his treating physician confirming the continued need for accommodation.
- That Mr. Zhan’s dog be required to wear a service vest identifying it as an emotional support animal while present in the common areas.
- That Mr. Zhan’s dog must be registered with the city and have a chip/licence for identification purposes, and that Mr. Zhan must provide a copy of this licence to MTCC 993.
- That Mr. Zhan provide proof that his dog has received all the necessary vaccinations.
- That Mr. Zhan’s dog is only permitted to be kept in the unit for the duration of time that the unit is Mr. Zhan’s primary residence.
Finally, I decline to make any order related to the conditions that seek to allow MTCC 993 to remove Mr. Zhan’s dog if it is found to be dangerous or a nuisance, those that prohibit the dog from causing damage to the common elements, and/or those that require Mr. Zhan to pay for any damage to the common elements caused by his dog. I decline to make these orders not because I believe they are unreasonable, but because such orders are not necessary as both MTCC 993’s governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) already provide provisions to address such situations and MTCC 993 can seek to enforce those provisions if needed.
That said, the Tribunal held that the owner had breached the governing documents by temporarily bringing a second dog (not covered by the request for accommodation) onto the property (which dog had since been removed).
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 993 v. Daniel Zhan, 2024 ONCAT 147