A few years ago there was a lot of talk of a Superior Court case involving a woman and her dog. There was a 25 lb weight restriction. Her dog was well over 25 lbs. The woman initially claimed she needed the dog for her work with autistic children, but later claimed she needed the dog because of her own disability. She obtained a doctor’s note that indicated she required the dog for “emotional needs”. The condominium asked for permission to talk to the woman’s physician, but she refused so the condominium rejected her request for accommodation and initiated an application for an order requiring her to remove the dog from the property. The judge found there was insufficient evidence of a disability or any medical reason for the dog to reside in the unit. The judge also stated that the condominium fulfilled its obligation and that it could not be blamed for her refusal to cooperate in the process. The judge ordered the dog removed and awarded costs of $47,000 to the condominium.
The case was hailed by some as the solution to the generic one-sentence doctor’s notes (i.e. ones from a walk-in clinic or other physician who has spent only a few minutes with the person; ones that do not describe the disability or how the dog is required to accommodate the disability). Others were more cautious about the applicability of the case to other situations. You can read a previous post about the case here: https://ontcondolaw.com/2015/06/24/dog-restrictions-and-disabilities/
Does a recent Human Rights Tribunal decision indicate that the pendulum is swinging away from the case?