Condo Living

February 2, 2026 Published by North Alberta Chapter - By Michael Gibson

Emotional Support Animals and Human Rights

The recent decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta in Hart versus Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation, 2025 AHRC 52 is a stark reminder of the challenges condominium boards face when trying to apply and enforce no-pets bylaws.

The recent decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta in Hart versus Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation, 2025 AHRC 52 is a stark reminder of the challenges condominium boards face when trying to apply and enforce no-pets bylaws.

Strict “No Pets” Bylaws Under Scrutiny

In Hart, the condominium bylaws provided for a strictly “no pets” building. There was no real discretion afforded to the board to permit pets except a grandfathering provision that expired in 1992. Absent a claim for an approved service dog with training and certification pursuant to the Service Dogs Act, there was no obvious distinction between an emotional support animal and a pet under the bylaws. Indeed, as every pet provides a measure of emotional support to its owner, it is difficult to comprehend any real distinction between an emotional support animal as such and a pet.

The Human Rights Complaint: Essential Facts

The unit owner in Hart filed a human rights complaint in respect of their emotional support dog. The essential facts in Hart were as follows:

• The complainant unit owner was physically disabled, having only 42% vision in one eye, and was blind in her other eye.
• She had her dog before her eyesight deteriorated and before purchasing her condominium unit.
• The dog was not an accredited “service dog” pursuant to the Service Dogs Act.
• The complainant was on a wait list for a service dog for a blind person.
• The complainant provided a medical note to the condominium board, which said only:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

The above named needs an emotional support dog for medical reason [sic]. Please do not hesitate to contact the clinic should you require further information.

• The medical note did not refer to a ‘support dog’ nor ‘service dog’ but rather, referred only to an ‘emotional support dog.’
• The complainant did not meet with her physician to secure the medical note nor was she assessed by her physician with respect to its content.

Board Enforcement vs Tribunal Decision

In view of the foregoing, the condominium board in Hart did not view the medical note as sufficient to establish a duty to accommodate a service animal based on medical necessity and sought to enforce the no-pets bylaws. The Human Rights Tribunal disagreed.

The Tribunal found that the sole reason for the complainant’s breach of the condominium bylaws and the subsequent enforcement steps taken by the condominium board was her keeping a dog that, according to the medical note provided, was needed as “an emotional support dog for medical reason.”

This was sufficient, in the Tribunal’s view, to establish a link between the use of the dog as “an emotional support animal”, the complainant’s ‘medical reason’, and the adverse/discriminatory impact of the board’s enforcement steps.

Tribunal Findings

The Tribunal accordingly found that the condominium corporation had discriminated against the complainant and had failed in its duty to accommodate her. The Tribunal made the following order against the condominium corporation”

1. The condominium corporation shall pay $15,000 to the complainant in general damages for injury to dignity;
2. The condominium corporation shall pay $50 to the complainant for a Court filing fee (which was the subject of another, separate hearing before a different body, being the Court of King’s Bench);
3. The condominium corporation was further directed to:
   • Review its Bylaws for compliance with the Alberta Human Rights Act and its duty to accommodate;
   • Complete training in Human Rights and the duty to accommodate, by a lawyer or experienced organization; and
   • Distribute to its board members and all its committees, the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s policy, also found on its website, entitled “Duty to accommodate in goods and services.”

Growing Trend in Human Rights Cases

Hart marks the latest in a line of recent decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal involving condominiums. There is now a growing body of human rights cases that require condominium boards to abstain from strict enforcement of their bylaws where there is a potential for discrimination against the unit owner alleged to be in breach of the bylaws. This engages a positive duty on the part of condominium boards to make further enquiries to inform themselves of the individual’s circumstances and grounds for accommodation more broadly. The requirement is for condominium boards to sufficiently inform themselves so they understand more about the specific accommodation request being made in any given case. Failure to make adequate enquiries may amount to a failure in the procedural duty to accommodate, which can result in serious liability on the part of the condominium corporation for a breach of its obligations pursuant to the Human Rights Act.

As residential condominiums are places of residence for their owners and tenants, as well, an established breach of the Human Rights Act will often be treated as a very serious breach, attracting more significant penalties and remedies. This is due to the fact that the Tribunal will typically see such discriminatory conduct as falling on the more serious side given that it occurs in relation to the complainant’s place of residence, a place where the complainant ought to feel most safe.

Common Remedies in Recent Cases

As a result, the growing trend in human rights cases in respect of condominiums increasingly and consistently provides for the following sorts of remedies:

1. A five-figure damages award;
2. Direction that the condominium bylaws shall not apply or shall not be enforced against a particular individual to the extent of any found breach or conflict with human rights legislation; and
3. Direction that the board members take human rights training courses.

These types of awards have been upheld regardless of whether the human rights complaint is fully successful or whether the complainant has established discrimination on all grounds and issues complained of. That is, such awards have been granted even in cases where a complainant advanced multiple claims of discrimination, only some of which the Tribunal found to have merit.

In view of how these cases are increasingly being decided, how should condominium boards respond to claims or threats of human rights complaints more broadly, but also emotional support animal claims more specifically?

Fundamentally, the condominium board should treat the duty to accommodate as paramount, even over and above the strict application of the bylaws. The duty to accommodate applies in respect of every claim of discrimination on human rights grounds. The duty requires the condominium board to make enquiries of unit owners who request accommodations on human rights grounds.

Condominium Boards: Duty to Accommodate

The board thus bears the positive duty to make sufficient enquiries and gather enough information about the request and the extent of accommodation that may be necessary, in order to evaluate its obligations and consider what is required of it to satisfy the duty. The flipside to this is that the individual seeking an accommodation also bears an obligation to provide the required medical or other information necessary to enable the condominium board to evaluate the extent of the duty to accommodate that will be required of it.

With respect to pet bylaws in particular, the low threshold required of unit owners to establish a duty to accommodate emotional support animals, coupled with the high burden placed on the condominium corporation to oppose such requests for accommodation, as well as the significant penalties for a breach of the duty to accommodate, throws into doubt the enforceability of a pets bylaw at all in the face of an accommodation request for an emotional support animal.

Implications for Pet Bylaws

In dealing with such claims, condominium boards would be well advised not to be too dismissive of accommodation requests for emotional support animals. The duty to accommodate may require that the board simply not enforce a particular bylaw provision against a particular owner. At a minimum, the board should ensure that they make sufficient enquiries for all necessary information to evaluate the extent of the accommodation required in any particular circumstances. Otherwise, being too quick and to strict in the enforcement of the bylaws may result in significant liability and expenses for the condominium corporation.

---

Michael Gibson is a Partner at Miller Thomson LLP (a national firm with condominium lawyers in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec) maintains a diverse practice primarily focusing on condominium and real estate law. In addition to his busy practice, Michael has been teaching Condominium Law at the University of Alberta, Faculty of Law since 2015. Michael Gibson and Roberto Noce, K.C. are also the authors of the textbook on Condominium Law in Alberta.