Antoaneta Claudia Baha, who lives with a disability in Waterloo, Ont., has two service dogs named Rylie (4) and Murphy (3).Alicia Wynter/The Globe and Mail
The accommodation of service dogs in Canada’s public and private spaces is an increasingly common debate, and a recent ruling in a condominium case zeroes in on the question of how much personal or medical information a disabled person needs to share to qualify for human rights protections.
On Aug. 26, a condominium corporation in Waterloo, Ont., found itself on the wrong side of a $15,000 penalty and a sharply worded rebuke from the province’s Condominium Authority Tribunal.
The 176-unit condo building at 225 Harvard Place, known legally as Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 (WNCC 37), has a one-dog-only rule for residents, which it sought to enforce against a couple who each have medical diagnoses and service animals to assist them.
In her ruling, CAT vice-chair Patricia McQuaid not only decried the “acrimony” and “strife” on display in the complaints, but found that WNCC 37 had “failed to reasonably exercise its discretion when applying these rules.”
Under the Ontario Human Rights Code disabled persons are entitled to a reasonable accommodation of their needs, and while The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled in the past that the right to accommodation is not absolute experts say there’s substantial case law ordering parties to look for solutions. Despite that, service animals have been flashpoints in several condo rule decisions.
“This has been surreal, it’s been a nightmare for sure,” said Claudia Baha, who has owned an apartment in WNCC 37 since 2023, and says she deals with panic attacks that her service dog Murphy assists her in managing. Ms. Baha’s partner also has a service dog, named Rylie, and the couple found themselves in a running battle with the condo board over a variety of issues: noise complaints filed by the then-chair of the condo board, applications to Ontario Superior Court to access her unit and search for water leaks, and the condo’s demands that her partner provide details of his condition to justify the presence of his service animal.
According to requests for costs filed, the condo has already spent nearly $40,000 on legal fees to pursue these matters. The condo’s financial statements as of June show its budget of $7,500 for legal costs in the past year has been obliterated by more than $150,000 in legal billings.
The legal firm representing the condo corporation says it disagrees with the $15,000 penalty and intends to appeal the CAT decision to divisional court.
'This has been surreal, it’s been a nightmare for sure', says Claudia Baha.Alicia Wynter /The Globe and Mail
“We do have instructions to pursue an appeal,” said Michael Ruhl, litigator with SmithValeriote Law Firm LLP. “Getting into enforcing rules haphazardly or in an unorganized fashion isn’t really an option that a condominium board has.”
In the condo’s submission to the CAT, SmithValeriote lawyers argued “neither the Condominium nor this Tribunal have been provided with any information about the nature of [Ms. Baha’s partner’s] disability or his disability-related needs, symptoms, restrictions, limitations, etc.” While Ontario law doesn’t require a person to share their diagnosis to prove a disability, Ms. Baha’s partner provided two letters from a doctor saying the service animal was appropriate. Still, the condo cited Human Rights Tribunal precedents in employment situations, which Mr. Ruhl argues supports the condo’s requests for more medical information to assess whether Ms. Baha’s partner’s dog was a “need” or a “preference.”
CAT’s Ms. McQuaid dismissed that demand, saying the condo was seeking “to substitute its opinion for that of the medical professionals.” Referencing a recent HRTO ruling – Peel Condominium Corporation No. 415 v. Vokrri et al – Ms. McQuaid admonished the condo corporation.
“Where opinions provided by qualified medical professionals support the position that the particular animal is the appropriate accommodation, it is not appropriate for the condominium’s board or counsel, or the Tribunal, to disregard those opinions and assume that some other animal would suffice.”
Graciela Flores Méndez is a staff lawyer with the ARCH Disability Law Centre, and while she stresses ARCH doesn’t take on employment or housing matters and she can’t offer an opinion about this specific case, she agrees there is case law that suggests “failing to provide this information when requested may be interpreted as failing to co-operate in the accommodation process.”
As a user of a service animal herself, she also recognizes there’s still a lot of stigma around their presence in public spaces.
“It’s a constant fight … people don’t seem to understand the distinction between a service animal and a pet,” said Ms. Flores Mendez. According to her, many times people come to ARCH with complaints about service providers – from ride shares to restaurants and airlines – denying them access and implying they are faking the need for a service animal.
“I can understand the concerns of people. But the alternative – being more stringent on proving that you are in need of a service animal – just creates barriers for people with disabilities,” she said.