In Ontario, the legal framework for accommodating service animals in condominiums with pet prohibitions is primarily governed by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Condominium Act, 1998.
The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) has jurisdiction over disputes involving condominium rules that govern pets, including issues related to emotional support animals (ESAs) and the enforcement of pet-related provisions.
ESA’s are working animals that assist persons with disabilities and are not considered pets. This includes emotional support animals, guide dogs for people with visual disabilities and other animals that may assist with mobility or psychiatric conditions.
An animal may be considered an ESA if:
- It wears a vest or harness that is easily identifiable as relating to a disability.
- The owner can provide documentation from a regulated health professional confirming the animal’s status or that the animal is required to assist with a disability.
CAT is not prepared to allow a unit owner an exemption to a condominium’s declaration to keep an ESA in their unit without a documented disability and corresponding need for accommodation. Upon receiving a request for accommodation under the Human Rights Code, for an ESA, condominiums are obligated to work with the requester in a respectful and collaborative fashion.
However, the condominium is also entitled to request proof of the following:
- a) A disability/condition;
- b) The related need for accommodation;
- c) A connection between the disability/condition and the accommodation requested; and
- d) The requester is obligated to provide this information to adequately support their accommodation request with documentation.
If the requester fails to do so, the CAT will not require the condominium to provide the unit owner with an exemption to the declaration.
Here are some key cases that illustrate how CAT handles these disputes:
- Medical Documentation Requirement: Condominium corporations can require medical documentation to support a request for a service animal as an accommodation for a disability. The documentation should confirm the existence of a disability, the limitations or needs associated with it, and the necessity of the service animal as an accommodation. In York Condominium Corporation No. 202 v. Szabo et al., 2024 ONCAT 76 (CanLII), the Tribunal emphasized the need for proper medical documentation to justify an exemption from pet rules based on disabilityrelated accommodation.
- Duty to Accommodate: The Ontario Human Rights Code requires that accommodations be made for individuals with disabilities, up to the point of undue hardship. This includes allowing service animals in condominiums that have pet prohibitions. In Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 993 v. Daniel Zhan, 2024 ONCAT 147 (CanLII), the Tribunal found that the owner was entitled to keep his dog as an accommodation for his disability, supported by medical documentation, emphasizing the need for a collaborative accommodation process.
- Individualized Assessment: Accommodation requests must be assessed on an individual basis. The Tribunal in Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 v. Baha et al, 2024 ONCAT 131 (CanLII) highlighted the importance of individualization in accommodation requests, noting that sufficient medical documentation was provided to support the need for a second service dog.
- Reasonableness and Undue Hardship: The Tribunal considers whether the accommodation imposes undue hardship on the condominium corporation. In York Condominium Corporation No. 435 v. Karnis et al., 2023 ONCAT 181 (CanLII), the Tribunal found that the condominium corporation failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the request for accommodation and emphasized the duty to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship.
5.Insufficient Documentation: Cases such as Norfolk Condominium Corporation No. 7 v. Vogl, 2024 ONCAT 165 (CanLII) illustrate that insufficient medical documentation can lead to a denial of accommodation requests. The Tribunal found that the note provided did not sufficiently establish the necessity of the service animals for accommodating a disability and further the Tribunal awarded $3,000 in legal costs due to the respondent’s failure to engage in the accommodation process and continued non-compliance with the condominium’s rules.
In Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 12 v. Spicer, 2022 ONCAT 21 (CanLII) the Tribunal addressed a dispute involving a ‘no pet’ provision and the respondent’s claim that her dog was an ESA under the Human Rights Code. The Tribunal required clear evidence of a disability needing accommodation and ordered the removal of the dog due to insufficient evidence.
In summary, while condominium corporations in Ontario can enforce pet prohibitions, they must accommodate service animals needed for disabilities, provided there is sufficient medical documentation to support the need for such accommodation.
The process involves a careful balance of rights and responsibilities, ensuring that accommodations are made without causing undue hardship to the condominium corporation.
For more information on this and other important condominium related information please go to www.gmalaw.ca or contact Gerry Miller at gerry.miller@gmalaw.ca