What About Requiring a Service Animal Vest?

In the case of CCC 165 v. Steele, the condominium corporation had a Rule requiring that pets be carried by hand or in a container when on the common elements. The Respondent unit owner had a disability that prevented her from complying with this Rule. The condominium corporation ultimately accepted the fact that the owner was entitled to be exempted from the Rule – and agreed that the dog could be kept on a short leash (rather than carried) when on the common elements. However, the condominium corporation wished to impose the following condition:

Eugenie (the dog) must wear a vest, harness, or some visible marker illustrating that she is a service animal.

The condominium corporation wished to impose this condition in order to “limit the complaints likely to be received by other owners when they see Ms. Steele walking Eugenie rather than carrying/pushing her”.

The Tribunal held that this condition was not acceptable. The Tribunal said:

While a service vest may help reduce complaints to the board regarding non-compliance with Rule 4.3 and may help ensure that Ms. Steele is not approached by other residents about what may appear to them to be an act of non-compliance, CCC 165 has not demonstrated that the possibility that it will receive more complaints will result in undue hardship. Condominiums are required to provide accommodations to residents, and this is something that can be communicated to any complainants easily and swiftly (while maintaining confidential the identity of the accommodation seeker).

In our view, the condominium corporation had sound reasons for the suggested condition. This is part of a condominium corporation’s fulfilment of its enforcement obligations and related responsibilities to all owners and residents in the community.   

In our view, the “undue hardship” test was not properly applied by the Tribunal to this case. The need to accommodate the owner had already been confirmed. There clearly was no undue hardship that would justify a refusal to accommodate the owner. But in our view the “undue hardship” test does not apply to every suggested condition. Instead, the Tribunal should have recognized the appropriateness of reasonable conditions that can (and should) be applied by a condominium corporation as part of accommodating a resident’s disability, to reasonably balance the legal rights and interests of all residents in the community. Furthermore: Given that there were sound reasons for the proposed condition, it is our view that the Tribunal should have been deferential to the Board’s decision.

It may be that the Tribunal determined that the accommodation being provided was not related to a service animal (instead it related to the resident’s inability to carry the animal). As a result, a vest denoting the animal as a “service animal” may not have been applicable in this case. Perhaps this is why the Tribunal failed to follow other CAT decisions that have found reasonable restrictions such as a service vest necessary and reasonable when seeking to balance the needs of all owners. [See for example YCC 435 v. Karnis et al., November 28, 2023.] However, we believe that a tag / vest of some sort, confirming the exemption from the Rule would have been reasonable in the circumstances (even if it did not say service animal).

The approach adopted by the Tribunal in this case – namely applying the principle of “undue hardship” to any contemplated condition – could prevent condominium corporations from ever imposing reasonable conditions that serve to meet and balance the needs of all residents in a given condominium community. We believe that previous decisions of the CAT, upholding the need for service vests in appropriate circumstances properly recognize the Corporation’s ability to balance the needs of residents in a given community.

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