Legal

March 25, 2026 Published by South Alberta Chapter - By Dionne Levesque, Kate Kozowyk

Human Rights Tribunal Rebukes Condo Board for Not Engaging in Accommodation Process

From the Winter 2026 issue of the CCI South Alberta CCI Review

Hart v. Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation, 2025 AHRC 52

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal recently considered a complaint made by a visually impaired residential condominium unit owner (the “Complainant”) against the condominium corporation (the “Condo Corporation”). The Complainant was blind in one eye and had 42% vision in the other eye. She was unable to see more than 18 inches away. The Condo Corporation conceded that the Complainant was disabled.

The Condominium’s bylaws explicitly prohibited pets, and the Complainant was aware of that prohibition prior to the purchase of her Unit in June 2021. The Complainant had owned her pet dog prior to the deterioration of her vision. She had informally trained the dog to guide and assist her, and viewed the dog as a mobility aid, but the dog was not a certified service dog.

The Condo Corporation had been made aware by the condo’s concierge that the Complainant had a dog that appeared to be a service dog. The Complainant wrote to the condo’s property manager, informing them that emotional support animals were not required to be registered in the same way service dogs were.

The property manager asked the Complainant to provide credentials for the dog or proof that it was medically necessary. The Complainant provided a medical note from a physician that stated: “The above named needs an emotional support dog for medical reason.”

The Condo Corporation found the medical note to be insufficient to establish medical necessity and began issuing bylaw enforcement warnings to the Complainant. She then moved into her Unit, with the dog. The Condo Corporation began issuing fines and eventually initiated legal proceedings, which were stayed pending the resolution of the Complainant’s subsequent Human Rights Commission claim.

Section 4 of the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”) provides that no person shall be discriminated against with respect to goods, services, accommodation or facilities on the basis of the grounds therein set out nor denied goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public. Unit owners in condominiums are considered a member of the public customarily served by a condominium.

A complainant under the Act has the burden to demonstrate that:

1. they have a characteristic protected from discrimination under the Act;
2. they experienced a negative or adverse impact; and
3. their disability was a factor in the adverse treatment they experienced as a result of the actions of the service provider.

If a complainant can demonstrate these conditions, the burden shifts to the service provider to demonstrate that it reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

Given that the Condo Corporation conceded that the Complainant was visually impaired, the first part of the test was met. The Tribunal found that the legal proceedings (including fines) and the failure to assess the Complainant’s accommodation were adverse impacts, meeting the second part of the test. Lastly, the third part of the test was met by way of the connection between the legal proceedings and the Complainant’s alleged breach of the no animal bylaw.

The Tribunal noted:

“Whether, upon further review, the Condo Board would have discovered that there were other ways to accommodate the complainant, or that the Medical Note was not supported, one will never know. The Condo Board moved to the fines and filing Legal Proceedings and did not request any more information from the complainant.”

Under the Act, a condominium corporation has both procedural and substantive obligations to accommodate an individual with disabilities to the point of undue hardship:

1. Procedurally, a service provider has a duty to take the necessary steps to determine what kind of accommodations might be required and how accommodation might be achieved; and
2. Substantively, a service provider has a duty to provide reasonable accommodation measures up to the point of undue hardship.

The Condo Corporation argued that it did not have a duty to accommodate the Complainant because it did not have sufficient information to conclude that the dog was a necessary mobility aid.

The Tribunal found that an individual seeking an accommodation under the Act must, at a minimum:

1. Provide medical information certifying a disability;
2. Provide the general nature of the disability; and
3. Set out the nature and scope of the limitations flowing from the disability.

The individual seeking accommodation bears the onus of providing the required medical information to the service provider. On the other hand, it was noted that there are times where, as part of the procedural duty to accommodate, the service provider may have to make further inquiries about the accommodation request.

This was found to be the case here. The Tribunal found that the Condo Corporation should have further engaged with the Complainant rather than immediately initiating the bylaw enforcement process upon their dissatisfaction with the Complainant’s medical note.

Interestingly, the Tribunal specifically noted that this decision made no ruling under the Act as to the use or accommodation of an emotional support dog, service dog, or the reliance on a dog as a mobility aid for accommodation purposes. The Tribunal also did not discuss whether the Condo Corporation had failed to meet its substantive duty to accommodate the Complainant.

The Tribunal awarded the Complainant $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity.

It is vital that condo boards and property managers are cognizant of their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate individuals with disabilities under the Alberta Human Rights Act. A lack of familiarity with these duties and their practical implications may lead to expensive and time-consuming litigation or human rights complaints.

For assistance with any condominium matter, please reach out to a lawyer.

---

Dionne Levesque
SVR Lawyers

Kate Kozowyk
SVR Lawyers