06/20/2024 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 87 published on 01/09/2024
Owner ordered to remove two dogs. Insufficient evidence that dogs were service animals.
The condominium corporation applied for the removal of the owner’s two large dogs. The corporation’s rules permitted only one small dog. The evidence also showed that the dogs were a nuisance.
The owner had claimed that the dogs were service animals (emotional support animals), but failed to provide adequate evidence of such, despite the condominium corporation’s reasonable requests. The owner did not participate in the proceeding.
The Tribunal ordered that the dogs be removed from the unit and that costs be paid to the corporation. The Tribunal said:
The Respondent has advised WCC 156 that two members of the household have disabilities and that both dogs are emotional support animals. However, no medical confirmation was provided despite several requests from the Applicant and its counsel.
…
When, as in this case, the condominium’s governing documents have provisions about animals, a unit owner cannot simply ignore those provisions. A person with a disability is entitled to ask for an accommodation to exempt them from the rules. If the accommodation they want is an exemption from the rules regarding animals, they must ask for the accommodation. They cannot simply decide that they are entitled to an accommodation. When considering such a request for accommodation, the condominium is entitled to ask for some, usually limited, additional information, including medical information, to help in its consideration of the accommodation request. Having reviewed the letters sent to the Respondent in this case, I find that the requests for information were appropriate and the requests were made in a respectful way.
…
I find the evidence provided by WCC 156 to be clear and credible. That evidence establishes that there are two dogs living in the unit; the dogs are not small dogs; and other residents have complained of frequent and loud barking caused by the dogs as well as aggressive behaviour. The board of directors have determined that the dogs are a nuisance and required that the dogs be removed.
…
On the basis of that evidence, I find that the dogs’ barking results in unreasonable noise which is a nuisance for other residents. I further find that the dogs have been allowed to engage in aggressive behaviour that is not properly controlled.
…
I have significant concerns about the impact this order may have on the Respondent’s family. The loss of a dog, particularly if it is in fact a support animal, may be very difficult. Had the Respondent provided the requested information to WCC 156 or participated in the case, the family circumstances would have been considered, potentially leading to a different result. However, the failure of the Respondent to engage in the accommodation process by providing information that was reasonably and respectfully requested, and the failure to engage in this case means that no evidence was available from the Respondent. WCC 156 was entitled to bring the application and it is not clear what more could reasonably have been done to encourage participation by the Respondent.
Wentworth Condominium Corporation No. 156 v. Halloum, 2024 ONCAT 87