B.C. man allowed to keep Great Dane in condo where pets prohibited: tribunal

A Great Dane is shown in this photo. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. man has won his fight to keep a Great Dane in his condo – despite the building’s ban on pets.

The province’s civil resolution tribunal ruled on the dispute Tuesday, finding the dog functions as an emotional support animal and that removing it would be tantamount to discrimination and would violate of the Human Rights Code.

The decision notes that the building bylaws explicitly ban owners or occupants from having “any dog, cat or other animal” and give the strata, which oversees bylaw enforcement, the power to demand that pets be removed and to impose fines on people who break the rules.

The strata brought a claim asking for an order that Lawrence Lee’s dog be removed and that he pay $17,200 in bylaw fines.

The bylaw exemption

But the strata also admitted it granted Lee an exemption from the no-pet policy in June of 2021 based on a doctor’s note indicating that Lee suffered from anxiety and depression. The note, according to the decision, also said that Lee had a history of “’seeking euthanasia’ due to loneliness” and that it explicitly said Lee was at an “increased risk of death” if he did not have a companion animal.

The strata argued that the exemption granted was for a small dog, specifically a Yorkshire terrier. In March of 2022, Lee and Cindy Lajoie Laframboise, who also lives in the condo, brought home the Great Dane. They told the tribunal they did not seek permission before getting a second dog and that the strata denied their request for an additional dog when it was made two months later.

The tribunal found the strata was entitled to deny a second dog, with the decision saying the doctor’s notes in evidence were “too vague to be interpreted to mean Mr. Lee required two dogs.”

But the terrier died in July of 2022, leaving only one, large dog in the unit.

“Just because Mr. Lee did not get pre-approval for the Great Dane does not mean the strata can ban the dog after his circumstances changed,” tribunal member J. Garth Cambrey wrote.

Undue hardship?

The strata did not dispute that Lee had a disability that “requires him to have a dog” nor did it dispute the legal duty to accommodate Lee by allowing a dog.

Instead, it made several arguments that this dog – in particular – should be removed.

First, the strata submitted that the exemption to the bylaw allowed Lee to have the Yorkshire terrier or a “similar- sized” replacement. That argument was rejected with the tribunal finding the exemption did not restrict the size or breed of dog allowed.

Second, the strata argued the dog was aggressive. Evidence in support of this included a petition signed by 80 residents of the building and video that showed the Great Dane “jumping up on one individual and biting another individual” in September of 2023. The strata called the BC SPCA as a result of these incidents.

“An animal control officer attended (the unit) and spoke to one of the respondents about the dog’s unacceptable behaviour,” the decision says.

“The officer confirmed that based on their knowledge, it was not a situation where the animal would be removed.”

The tribunal also noted that the dog’s behaviour evidently improved after the SC SPCA officer attended and that the owners said the dog had been working with a trainer.

Because of this, the tribunal found there was not enough evidence to show that the dog was aggressive and that allowing the residents to keep it would be an “undue hardship” for the strata, which would provide legal justification for not allowing the dog.

“I dismiss the strata’s request that the dog be removed, and I grant the respondents’ requested order that the Great Dane be permitted to remain in (the unit). Since my reasons are based on Mr. Lee’s disability, I find the Great Dane may remain in (the unit) for as long as Mr. Lee resides there,” Cambrey wrote.

While the majority of bylaw fines were removed, the tribunal did find that having two dogs was a breach and upheld $800 in fines for the period when that was the case.