LET'S EXPLORE: JY DOES CASE LAW
Feel free to click the links, Farmers, and follow along with our future jurist.
WHAT JY CALLS IT: BH obo CH v. Creekside Estates Strata, 2016 BCHRT 100 at para 88 [Creekside].
CITATION: BH obo CH v. Creekside Estates Strata KAS1707 and another, 2016 BCHRT 100 (CanLII)
link to canlii
DATE DECIDED: July 26, 2016 (new Guide Dog and Service Dog Act took effect January 2016)
PARAGRAPH CITED BY YANIV: "[88] However, that is not the end of the matter. If Mr. H has a disability and is suffering from an adverse impact related to his disability because of the bylaw, then he may be entitled to reasonable accommodation."
FACTS: Tenant BH filed a complaint against her strata, Creekside Estates, alleging that she and her son were discriminated against when the Strata demanded her son remove his pit bull mix. The dog violated Strata rules because it was the second pet in the unit and because it exceeded the allowable size of a dog in the Strata. BH alleged that the dog was a service animal for her son's drug addiction.
DECISION: Dismissed. The dog was not a service animal according to the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.
DISCUSSION: This appears to be the fact pattern closest to JY's situation, and was not resolved in the way JY would want it to be. Nothing in this or any other judgement JY cites addresses having a dog in shared areas or public areas, only in personal units.
WHAT JY CALLS IT: Devine v david burr Ltd. (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 37 at paras 1-8 [Devine].
CITATION: Devine v. david burr and others (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 37 (CanLII)
canlii link
DATE DECIDED: February 10, 2010
PARAGRAPHS CITED BY YANIV: there's a bunch. they're irrelevant.
FACTS: Ms. Devine is Deaf. She had a dog, Bowser, who performed certain functions for her. In view of the fact that Bowser was becoming elderly, she acquired a new dog, Max. Between the time that she moved in with Bowser and the time she acquired Max, the building had adopted a no-pets policy. The building received complaints about Max and as a result eventually evicted Ms. Devine.
DECISION: Dismissed. Max was an unruly dog that caused problems for other tenants. Ms. Devine's disability did not entitle her to keep two dogs, or to keep an unruly dog.
DISCUSSION: While this action proceeded under the former Guide Dog Act, it is nonetheless interesting in that the fact finder appeared to assume that Ms. Devine's dog could qualify as providing a service, but her eviction was nonetheless justified because her dog was unruly.
WHAT JY CALLS IT: Jones v. The Owners Strata Plan 1571, 2008 BCHRT 200
CITATION: Jones v. The Owners Strata Plan 1571 and others, 2008 BCHRT 200 (CanLII)
canlii link
DATE DECIDED: May 29, 2008
FACTS: Mr. Jones was blind. He had a dog that gave assistance to him. He wished to purchase a strata property that limited companion animals to a weight of 15 kg, lighter than Mr. Jones' dog. Mr. Jones did not have documentation for his dog.
DECISION: Justified. Despite the fact that Mr. Jones' dog was not a registered Guide Dog, the Strata did not demonstrate that it could not reasonably accomodate Mr. Jones' dog.
DISCUSSION: This is the closest to being in JY's favour. The Strata was hindered by credibility issues and its inability to make a case that Mr. Jones' dog could not be accomodated.
WHAT JY CALLS IT: Mann and Hutchison v. Rufer and Simituk, 2009 BCHRT 322.
CITATION: Mann and Hutchison v. Rufer and Simituk, 2009 BCHRT 322 (CanLII)
canlii link
DATE DECIDED: September 23, 2009
FACTS: Ms. Hutchinson is visually impaired and uses a service dog. Ms. Hutchinson and Mr. Mann sought to rent a basement suite in the home of Ms. Rufer and Mr. Simituk. Ms. Rufer and Mr. Simituk withdrew an offer to the complainents to view their basement suite when they learned that Ms. Hutchinson had a dog, as they already had a dog, Tango, and Tango was known to be territorial and aggressive to other dogs.
DECISION: Dismissed. Rufer and Simituk had a
bona fide reasonable justification for refusing to rent to the tenants; namely, the desire to avoid a dog fight between their territorial dog and Ms. Hutchinson's dog.
DISCUSSION: It is hard to ascertain what about this case JY finds helpful.
WHAT JY CALLS IT: Kallstrom v. Strata Plan BCS1437 and others, 2019 BCHRT 215.
CITATION: Kallstrom v. Strata Plan BCS1437 and others, 2019 BCHRT 215 (CanLII)
canlii link
DATE DECIDED: October 10, 2019
FACTS: This is a Section 27(1) application to dismiss an action that has no reasonable prospect of success. Ms. Kallstrom had three animals in her unit in contravention of Strata by-laws limiting her to two. She alleged she required these three animals as emotional support animals. She presented evidence from her doctor that purported that she would commit suicide if not permitted to maintain all three dogs.
DECISION: Dismissed against the Strata Corporation. Complaint will proceed to hearing against the Residential Section, a separate corporate body from the Strata Corporation and the entity handling enforcement of Strata by-laws in residential units. While the Tribunal Member did not necessarily think that Ms. Kallstrom was likely to succeed in her complaint at the tribunal level, the complaint "has surpassed the low threshold of conjecture and requires a hearing for the Tribunal to make factual findings about what actually occurred." (para. 55)
DISCUSSION: The final ruling on this could be of interest if it is reported. The s. 27 application decision appears to be of limited value.
