Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
TRIBUNAL quashes NO PETS condo corp’s UNILATERAL conditions:“comfort” pitbull clone YCC288.v TAMHANE 2023/02/10 19:27  
Not legal advice, as usual


And then maybe even later get frightened - or at least concerned and maybe without justification – about the Board "accommodating" a tenant’s choice of an a comfort pitbull clone?

The condo Board belatedly and unilaterally imposed its own conditions. ( Given online photos of American Bully dogs, the conditions may ? have been fairly reasonable as to muzzling, common element exclusion & specific elevator. )

"ESA" means Emotional Support Animal. ( comfort or companion, in contrast to "certified service animal" like working CNIB guide dogs )

1 - Is American Bully” a PITBULL clone but now bred to be safe ?

Besides some visual similarities is the process incomplete ? Is it like mixing unknown amounts of deadly hard drugs ? :

Oct 7/22 U.K. Daily Mail “ . . . . begged my daughter to get rid of her dog before it killed her'- mother of woman, 43, mauled to death by her XL Bully. subtitle Joanne Robinson, 43, was killed by her American Bully XL dog at home in July” bad-happen.html

Oct 14/22 UK Mirror “American Bully XL destroyed by police after mauling dog walker to death in park”

March 24/22 BBC ( 17 month old killed by new dog) “ Dog that killed British toddler was legal American Bully XL”

2 - But the ONCAT adjudicator here states was not persuaded that danger was evidenced. Or at least NOT as to the dog in question . . . .

3 - An ONCAT Condominium Authority TRIBUNAL adjudicator has refused a NO PETS condo corporation’s Application to expel a "large American Bully" dog which it had reportedly earlier approved as an ESA support animal. ( such had been a decided "rights accommodation" otherwise stated in breach of both Declaration & supporting documents. Wonder how much research was done about American Bully dogs or why a smaller dog would be inadequate ? )

The adjudicator also invalidated conditions the condo corp had purported to unilaterally impose to “accommodate” that pitbull clone ! Relevantly the ONCAT adjudicator disturbingly pronounces a lack of demonstrated and “meaningful” back – and - forth interactions with the accommodation-seeker to work out undue hardship conditions !

But is this disturbing scenario a correct application of it ?

Elsewhere in the tribunal universes Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal itself – not ONCAT AS here - recently looked at (mis-)understanding autism / need for meaningful back-and –forth interaction to establish conditions to accommodate ( see preceding topic : )

4 - COSTS awarded against the condo corp !

With both sides represented by counsel ONCAT awards the dog-owner $ 9,400 or 60 % of his declared costs of $ 15.7 K

Y.C.C. # 288 v Tamhane ( 2023) ONCAT 16 issued Feb 1/23

The adjudicator expressed that the evidence of danger was not supported as to justify expulsion. And that due process was not pursued to work out conditions on a meaningful back-and-forth basis.

This recent outcome is discussed by well-respected Ottawa condo law specialist Jim Davidson ( partner Davidson Houle Allen LLP )

Feb 9/23 Jim Davidson LLB “The Importance of Consultation and Collaboration”
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
TRIBUNAL quashes NO PETS condo corp’s UNILATERAL conditions:“comfort” pitbull clone YCC288.v TAMHANE 2023/02/12 14:55  
Not legal advice as usual.


This MIGHT ? be a cautionary tale about "being too casual" ? The ONCAT adjudication is almost silent about the original "decision to accommodate".

Was the tenant "accommodation-seeker" somehow given carte blanche about choice of ESA pooch ? Or casually ignored ? Or details "fell through the cracks " ? Amidst COVID concerns & workload, had the tenant originally merely shown video of some adorable little critter ? Anyway the adjudicator treated this particular doggy ( ? pitbull clone ? ) as not shown dangerous.

The ONCAT adjudicator condemns months of delay by governancers before actually expressing "conditions" of the rights accommodation. And later erratic following up some of the alleged later disturbances.

Skillsets may be limited. ( see the statute itself ) Until after an attack or substantial kvetching by other condo owners or CITY animal control intervention, there can be complexity to get a DISPUTED 'pitbull' label even attached to a specific animal !

Nor muzzling / short-leashing.

1 - Is a "pitbull' label too scarlet a "scarlet letter" ? Why ?

( disclaimer : Nurture or Nature ) : I myself once had a lovable looking Porty Portuguese Water Dog like former President Obama's. "Looks like a teddy bear" but turned out later to develop a disturbingly aggressive streak. YES I get it. Respectfully "pitbull hybrids" & arguably their source breeds, may be lovable & trustworthy. Maybe the problem is nurture by dangerous bad dudes.

But think of a loaded, cocked shotgun left standing upright on a shaky tabletop ! "Hit it with 2 by 4 ! And an iron pipe ! But it just kept on attacking oblivious to pain . . . ! " )

From a different condo outcome elsewhere, see this zinger quote below : " " . . .[61] I do not need to rule on whether the simple act of raising attack dogs in a condominium makes one unsuitable for communal living. . . .

2 - Some Background ( not legal advice ) :

( DOLA was amended in 2005 by the Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 2 - Bill 132 )

D.O.L.A. Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16

see especially : “Pit Bulls — Ban and Related Controls” DOLA parts 6 to 11 and s. 19 Identification of pit bull

3 - Until a serious attack actually occurs, do courts or tribunals prefer to leave the "identification" issue to whatever municipal resources ? That's if - IF - a difficult choice can be avoided ?

4 - BUT AFTER some sorta attack has allegedly occurred - with adequate evidence - how quick to get a remedy ? Looks like may not be quick nor cheap if disputed . . .

M.T.C.C. # 3260 v Singh et al (2022) ONSC 1606 issued March 14/22

( ONSC orders not merely a pair of alleged pitbull hyrids - "Pocket pit bull Bullies" - removed from an eastern MIMICO condo complex, but also the defiant tenant dogowners themselves after their being adjudicated in defiance of the judge's prior Court Order ! In an elevator attack, another owner & her dog had been seriously injured ! )

xcrpt Mr Justice F.L. Myers :

" . . .[61] I do not need to rule on whether the simple act of raising attack dogs in a condominium makes one unsuitable for communal living.

The refusal to take the simplest of precautions, despite being ordered to do so by the City, and then deliberately ignoring two orders of the court, convinces me that the tenants are unsuited for communal living and communal use
of property.

Moreover, there is no other remedy short of ordering the tenants to vacate the unit that will ameliorate the ongoing risk of injury to others or to enforce the condominium’s rules.

[62] Under s. 134 (4) of the Condominium Act, 1998, I find that the tenants are in contravention of the orders made under s. 134 (3) on January 28 and February 11, 2022.

It is just and equitable that their lease with Ms. Sxxxx be terminated and that they be ordered to vacate the premises. . . . " - unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster