23/11/2022 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 80 published on 01/12/2022
Resident ordered to remove dog
The Tribunal ordered the resident to remove a dog that was not permitted by a provision in the condominium corporation’s Declaration. The Tribunal held that the resident had not proven a right to accommodation under the Human Rights Code, and also held that the resident had not been “targeted” for enforcement. The Tribunal said:
I find that the Respondent has not provided evidence to refute the evidence of the condominium manager that there are currently only five dogs living in the building. I accept the evidence of the condominium manager and find that there are four other dogs in the building in addition to the Respondent’s dog, and that one of these is a legacy dog and the other three have been accepted as accommodations under the Code. I find that the Respondent has not shown they have been unfairly targeted.
…
Most pet owners benefit from having a pet. The reasons include companionship and emotional support. However, there are people who do not like other people’s pets and others who may have medical reasons for limiting contact with animals. These people may prefer to live in condominiums with “no pets” rules, subject to obligations under the Code.
I accept that having to remove the dog will result in emotional distress for the family but that does not establish a right to accommodation or provide a legal basis to allow the dog to stay.