Photo: Colin Dakre’s photo file
The British Columbia Civil Decision Tribunal has ruled that a Sicamous woman can keep her three cats for emotional support despite a ban on her layers for more than one pet.
Jennifer Schlosser and Zachary Lenny challenged the ban on their strata, saying the stratum had failed to meet its obligation under British Columbia’s Human Rights Code.
Lenius is the owner of the block, Schlosser is described as a tenant.
In this case, it was indisputable that the statute of the stratum said that an owner, tenant or occupant could have only one cat or one dog.
Strata received a complaint from two cats in the apartment and asked Lenius to respond in November 2020.
Lenius told the layers that the cats were support animals and attached a letter from a licensed social worker in Saskatchewan.
“Jennifer’s cats are a long-standing and integral part of Jennifer’s treatment plan for managing and regulating her anxiety,” the social worker wrote. “I would recommend Jennifer to keep her cats in her home for the ongoing emotional support they provide.
The stratum responds that it needs medical documentation.
Lenius and Schloser provided a letter from a doctor stating that she had “a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and I agree with her previous recommendations from medical professionals regarding her treatment. It is clear that her three cats are beneficial for her mental health. health and that an animal should be removed would be significantly detrimental to her diagnosed medical condition.
The doctor suggested that the layers allow Schloser to keep the cats.
“I would recommend that these animals be considered necessary for the mental health therapy of the above patient and not be required to remove an animal for this reason.”
A letter from a Saskatchewan family doctor was also provided, saying Schloser had been diagnosed with moderate anxiety disorder and that Schloser had “found therapy” with her three cats, which she had used for a long time since she was a teenager.
The Layer Council then rejected the request for accommodation, stating that it did not have the expertise to assess whether pets were needed in the situation, and had “neither the expertise nor the authority to provide such accommodation”.
The council told Lenius and Schlosser to contact the Human Rights Tribunal and that the strata should impose a bylaw on a pet.
In his decision of May 3, tribunal Vice President Ken Campbell noted that the first medical note “found that the absence of her three cats would be significantly detrimental to Ms. Schlosser’s injury.”
Partly in response to the request for accommodation, the strata presented a special resolution to the assembly to amend the statutes to allow two pets in the stratum account. It didn’t work. Then, at the annual general meeting in July 2021, the owners of the strata again voted against such a resolution.
Campbell said the layers used those voices to justify their position.
“This is no excuse for refusing to accommodate a disability,” Campbell said. “The question is whether the strata must comply with Mrs Schloser by making an exception to their statutes, and this is not a matter in which the will of the majority is decisive.
“Furthermore, the fact that the majority of owners want to keep the existing pet policy does not indicate that Ms. Schloser’s placement would create unnecessary difficulties,” Campbell said, noting that Schloser could keep his three cats but could not. to have other pets.
Vancouver lawyer Laura Track is dealing with similar cases and said human rights law makes it clear that the stratum and other housing providers, such as landlords and co-operatives, must reasonably take into account the disability needs of residents.
“This means that home providers may need to adjust or make exceptions to the rules for their pets to take care of the damage to residents,” Truk said.
She said the decision highlights two important aspects of the obligation to comply. First, the obligation arises only if the resident has a real, disability-related accommodation need.
“Many people get significant mental and physical health benefits from having a pet. However, at least in British Columbia, the law does not generally protect a person’s right to have a pet in a rented or layered unit. Landlords are allowed to have a pet ban policy. “
But if someone needs an animal with a disability, then the landlord is obliged to accommodate him, Trak said.
“In this case, the medical evidence was clear that this man had relied on his cats to support her with her mental health problems for many years and would suffer significant harm if the cats were removed,” Track said. “This type of medical support is the key to the success of a human rights claim.
Second, she said, if a stratum refuses to face someone’s disability, they must be able to explain why.
“From a legal point of view, they must show a bona fide and reasonable justification for refusing accommodation,” the lawyer said.
“As this case shows, they cannot rely on the voice of the members of the stratum to avoid their obligation to adapt. They also cannot shift the burden on the resident, claiming that she knew the rules for pets before applying. ”
Cases are becoming more common.
In January, a Vancouver man whose state council refused to allow him to have an emotional support dog failed to force the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to overturn the decision.
William Lilac claims that the ban is a violation of the British Columbia Code of Human Rights based on age, physical and mental disability.
Add Comment