In the case of MTCC 993 v. Daniel Zhan, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) addressed a dispute over service animal accommodations in a pet-prohibited condominium. Despite the condominium corporation’s governing documents prohibiting pets, the Tribunal ruled that the owner, Mr. Zhan, was entitled to keep his dog as an emotional support animal. However, the Tribunal did not permit the owner to have a second animal, even temporarily.
Reasonable Conditions for Service Animal Accommodation
The Tribunal also assessed the conditions that would apply to the service animal, ultimately determining that the following conditions were reasonable and should be accepted:
- Mr. Zhan must notify the board in writing if/when he no longer requires the dog for disability-related needs and must remove the dog from the premises at that time.
- When in common areas, Mr. Zhan’s dog must be either crated, carried, or placed on a leash.
However, the Tribunal rejected several other conditions proposed by the condominium corporation, stating that they lacked sufficient rationale and did not align with the principles of accommodation, which include respect for dignity, integration, and full participation as outlined in the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) policy.
Rejected Conditions
The Tribunal refused to impose the following conditions:
- Requiring Mr. Zhan to submit an annual letter from his treating physician confirming the continued need for accommodation.
- Mandating that the dog wear a service vest identifying it as an emotional support animal in common areas.
- Requiring the dog to be registered with the city and have a microchip/license for identification, with Mr. Zhan providing a copy to the condominium corporation.
- Providing proof that the dog has received all necessary vaccinations.
- Restricting the dog’s presence in the unit only to the period when it is Mr. Zhan’s primary residence.
Tribunal’s Rationale
The Tribunal also declined to impose additional conditions that it deemed unnecessary, including those related to the removal of the dog if it were found to be dangerous or a nuisance, prohibiting damage to common elements, and requiring Mr. Zhan to cover any damages caused by his dog. The Tribunal emphasized that these concerns were already addressed under the condominium’s governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998, which provide mechanisms for enforcement if needed.
Key Takeaways
Determining the appropriate conditions for service animals should be based on the specific circumstances of each case. Conditions similar to those rejected in this case might be reasonable in other situations. It is essential for condominium corporations and pet owners to engage in open discussions regarding proposed conditions to reach a mutual agreement. Before imposing conditions, condominium corporations should ensure they have solid, justifiable reasons for their requirements.
This case highlights the importance of balancing accommodation rights with reasonable restrictions, ensuring that service animal policies align with legal principles and respect the rights of all parties involved.
March 13, 2025 | Cheryll Wood Condo Law
Categories: Accommodation, Animals, Human Rights
