08/26/2024 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 87 published on 01/09/2024
Despite Rule allowing only one dog per unit, the Respondents were entitled to an accommodation permitting two dogs.
The condominium corporation’s rules permitted only one dog per unit. The Condominium Act (Section 117 (2)) and the corporation’s rules also prohibited unreasonable noise (including unreasonable noise from pets). The condominium corporation claimed that the Respondents were in breach of these rules (by having two dogs and because the dogs caused unreasonable noise).
The Tribunal dismissed the condominium corporation’s claims. The Tribunal held that the two Respondents were each entitled to their own service dog (in each case as an accommodation for a disability) and also held that the two dogs were not causing unreasonable noise.
The Tribunal said:
After considering the relevant evidence and submissions, I have concluded that WNCC 37 has not established that the dogs are causing unreasonable noise, and that Mr. Murphy has provided sufficient information to support the requested accommodation thereby permitting the presence of two dogs in the unit.
…
As (the case of Peel Condominium Corporation No. 415 v. Vokrri et al.) indicates, where opinions provided by qualified medical professionals support the position that the particular animal is the appropriate accommodation, it is not appropriate for the condominium’s board or counsel, or the Tribunal, to disregard those opinions and assume that some other animal would suffice.
…
Mr. Murphy’s physicians have clearly identified Rylie, his existing service dog, as the appropriate accommodation to meet his specific needs. Nevertheless, WNCC 37 submits that it needs further information to be able to propose other potential accommodation methods – in other words, to substitute its opinion for that of the medical professionals, as alluded to in WNCC 37’s counsel’s letter of February 13, 2024. One such proposal made in submissions was that one dog may be sufficient – that is, that Ms. Baha and Mr. Murphy share a service dog, thereby bringing themselves into compliance with the one‑pet rule. As stated in Vokrri, dogs are not widgets, and even less so when considering service dogs which serve an individual’s specific needs.
The Tribunal ordered the Corporation to pay $15,000 in damages.
Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 v. Baha et al, 2024 ONCAT 131