No-Pets Rule Prevails: CAT upholds compliance
In York Condominium Corporation No. 288 v. Archambeau, Sardouk (2025 ONCAT 137), the Condominium Authority Tribunal upheld a strict no-pets policy by ordering a dog’s permanent removal after rejecting an emotional support animal claim based on unverifiable medical notes. The CAT also awarded the corporation $4,200 in costs against non-participating respondents.
The dispute involved a condominium declaration and rule that prohibited animals in units and common areas. One occupant asked to keep a dog as an emotional support animal and produced medical documentation in support of that request. The corporation reviewed the materials, attempted to verify them, and concluded that the documents could not be confirmed as authentic. After the request was denied, the dog remained in the unit, and the corporation brought an application to enforce its pet restrictions.
The Tribunal accepted the corporation’s position and found that the respondents had breached the pet provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the corporation had given notice of the issue and had provided the occupant with opportunities to produce proper documentation. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the dog was entitled to remain in the unit as an accommodated service animal. It therefore ordered the dog removed within 30 days.
The case also shows that Tribunal remedies are closely tied to the evidence. The corporation raised concern about cats in the unit as well, but the Tribunal declined to make an order regarding them because there was insufficient evidence that proper notice had been given to demand their removal. That distinction is important. Even where a condominium corporation succeeds on the main issue, each requested order must still be supported by evidence and procedural fairness.
Costs were another important part of the decision. The corporation asked for a substantial contribution to its legal fees, but the Tribunal reduced the amount and ordered $4,200 in total costs, including Tribunal fees, which amounts were payable on a joint and several basis. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not meaningfully participated in the hearing and that the matter had become relatively straightforward. In any event, this aspect of the decision sends a clear message: ignoring the process can have financial consequences.
For condominium corporations, the decision emphasizes that pet restrictions should be clearly drafted, enforcement should be documented carefully, and accommodation requests should be assessed fairly but rigorously. For unit owners and occupants, it is a reminder that a request for accommodation is not enough on its own. If a person seeks an exception to a pet prohibition based upon Human Rights, the request should be supported by credible documentation and handled cooperatively.
More broadly, the decision reinforces a familiar principle in condominium law: shared living depends on clear rules, timely communication, and compliance from all parties. Where a pet prohibition exists, and an accommodation request cannot be properly established, the Tribunal can be expected to order compliance and also to award costs.
Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!
