CAT Determines Conditions For Service Animal

In the case of MTCC 993 v. Daniel Zhan, the condominium corporation’s governing documents (Declaration and Rules) prohibited pets. Nevertheless, the CAT held that the owner was entitled to keep his dog as an emotional support animal. [The Tribunal also held that the owner was not entitled to a second animal, even on a temporary basis.]

The Tribunal also considered the conditions that would apply to the service animal. The Tribunal held that the following conditions were reasonable in this case and should be accepted:

1. Mr. 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.
2. When in the common areas, Mr. Zhan’s dog must be either crated, carried or placed on a leash.

However, the Tribunal held that “there has not been sufficient rationale provided for the need for several of the other requested conditions (i.e. requested by the condominium corporation), 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 particular, the Tribunal refused the following conditions:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. That Mr. Zhan provide proof that his dog has received all the necessary vaccinations.
5. 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.

The Tribunal also declined to order further conditions which the Tribunal felt were “unnecessary”. In particular, the Tribunal stated as follows:

• 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.

In our view, the appropriate conditions (to apply to a service animal) will depend upon the particular circumstances. In some cases, conditions of the sort that were refused by the Tribunal in this case might make good sense. Our suggestion is that there should be a fulsome discussion between the condominium corporation and the pet owner (about the requested conditions) in each case. Hopefully the parties will be able to come to an agreement (about the conditions that will apply). Otherwise, before imposing conditions, the condominium corporation should be satisfied that there are good, sound reasons for the requested conditions.

Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!