top of page
White Columns
< Back

York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1375 v. Sousa - 2022 ONCAT 118 - 2022-11-07

Corporation:

YRSCC 1375

Date:

2022-11-07

Summary:

In the case of "York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1375 v. Sousa," the Applicant, a condominium corporation, sought the removal of a dog owned by the Respondent, due to violations of weight and breed restrictions outlined in the condominium's governing documents. The Respondent claimed the right to accommodation under the Ontario Human Rights Code, asserting that the dog was indispensable to her. The key issue was whether the Respondent was entitled to her requested accommodation and whether it would cause undue hardship to the condominium corporation.

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Compliance with Governing Documents
Pets and Animals

Verdict:

In the case of York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1375 v. Sousa, the Tribunal found that the Respondent was entitled to accommodation under the Ontario Human Rights Code, allowing her to keep her dog on the condominium property, even though King exceeded the weight and breed restrictions specified in the condominium's governing documents. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant failed to demonstrate undue hardship, as there was no substantial evidence to support the claim that German Shepherds posed a danger. Both parties had requested costs, and the Tribunal ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent's legal costs, emphasizing the Applicant's unwavering insistence on strict compliance with the rules over reasonable accommodation.

Takeaways:

Key Takeaways:
The Respondent was found to be entitled to her requested accommodation based on the dog'sindispensable role, but not specifically due to his weight or breed.
The Applicant failed to demonstrate that accommodation would result in undue hardship, as there was no evidence of danger or significant detriment.
The Applicant's insistence on strict compliance with its rules hindered resolution without tribunal proceedings.
Both parties sought costs, but the Respondent was awarded a partial costs award due to the Applicant's unnecessary demands for evidence.
The Intervenor, who supported the Respondent's position, was credited to minimize contributing to the Applicant's costs.

Recommendations: 

Based on the provided case details, here are some recommendations and key takeaways:

1. Compliance with Governing Documents:

Condominium corporations should ensure that their governing documents, including declarations and rules, are clear and reasonable.
Rules related to pets and animals, including breed restrictions and weight limits, should be reasonable and supported by valid reasons.
Declarations should be drafted carefully to ensure they comply with relevant laws and regulations.
2. Accommodation Under Human Rights Legislation:

It's crucial to recognize that individuals with disabilities have the right to seek accommodation under human rights legislation. In this case, the Respondent argued that her dog was a necessary support animal.
Condominium corporations should be prepared to consider accommodation requests and engage in the accommodation process in good faith.
3. Reasonable Accommodation:

When presented with an accommodation request, condominium corporations should assess whether the requested accommodation is reasonable.
The case highlights that allowing the resident to keep a dog that does not violate existing restrictions is not considered reasonable accommodation. Instead, the accommodation may involve granting exceptions to existing rules or restrictions when needed due to a disability.

bottom of page