Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Martis v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 253 - 2021 ONCAT 60 - 2021-07-07
Corporation:
MPCC 253
Date:
2021-07-07
Summary:
In the case of Martis v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 253, a dispute arose when a condominium unit owner requested accommodation for her son's Emotional Support Animal (ESA), which was expected to grow to 60-70 pounds. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 253 (PCC253) imposed a 25-pound weight limit on ESAs, citing their ESA Policy. PCC253 sought to dismiss the case, claiming that it involved human rights issues and fell outside the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). However, the CAT denied the dismissal motion, stating that the case concerns the validity and enforceability of the ESA Policy and the Pet Rule, which restrict or govern pets within the condominium, making it within the CAT's jurisdiction.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Pets and Animals
Procedural Issue with Governing Documents
Verdict:
In the case of Martis v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 253, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) rejected a motion by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 253 (PCC253) to dismiss the application. The CAT determined that the case fell within its jurisdiction because it involved the validity and enforceability of PCC253's ESA Policy, the Pet Rule, and policies related to pet restrictions, demonstrating that even policies indirectly affecting condominium rules can be subject to CAT jurisdiction when enforcement is involved.
Takeaways:
In the case of Martis v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 253, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 253 (PCC253) sought to dismiss the application, arguing that the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, as it primarily concerned human rights issues related to an Emotional Support Animal (ESA).
The dispute centered on an ESA accommodation request made by the applicant on behalf of her son, who needed an ESA, a dog that could potentially weigh between 60 to 70 pounds. PCC253 insisted that the dog's weight must not exceed 25 pounds, citing their ESA Policy.
The CAT denied the dismissal motion, emphasizing that the case involved the validity and enforceability of the ESA Policy and the Pet Rule, which govern pets in the condominium, thereby falling within its jurisdiction.
The CAT also noted that the Pet Rule and policies regarding exemptions from it were legitimate issues to be addressed in the hearing, as they pertained to the reasonableness of restrictions and accommodations.
The CAT's jurisdiction extends to disputes involving rules governing pets in condominiums, including policies that may indirectly affect such rules, and it deemed this case properly within its jurisdiction.
Recommendations:
Clarity in Condominium Policies: Condominium corporations should ensure that their policies, especially those related to pets and accommodations, are clearly articulated in their governing documents (declaration, by-laws, or rules). This clarity will help prevent disputes like the one in this case and provide a straightforward framework for addressing accommodation requests.
Accommodation for Disabilities: Condominium corporations should be prepared to address accommodation requests related to disabilities, such as Emotional Support Animals (ESAs), in a fair and reasonable manner. They should have clear procedures and policies in place to evaluate such requests, ensuring they comply with human rights legislation while also considering the specific needs of residents.
Legal Review of Policies: Before enforcing any new policy or rule that may impact residents' rights or accommodations, it's advisable for condominium corporations to seek legal review to ensure the policy aligns with the condominium's governing documents and relevant laws. This proactive step can help prevent disputes and costly legal proceedings in the future.