10/03/2026– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 93 published on 01/03/2026
Respondent entitled to accommodation to permit dog
The condominium corporation’s Declaration contained a provision prohibiting all animals.
The Respondents sought an accommodation, based upon the disability of the Respondent Panagiotou, to permit a dog which was an alleged service animal.
In an interim decision, the Tribunal had ordered the removal of a cat, which was not a service animal.
The Tribunal determined that the dog is a service animal, and ordered that “Ms. Panagiotou is entitled to accommodation under the Human Rights Code to allow her to have her dog Lucy with her when she is staying in the unit owned by Mr. Copsas.”
The Tribunal said:
A condominium corporation or any other person or body that is asked to accommodate someone under the Code is not required to simply accept the person’s assertion that they have a disability and can ask for medical confirmation. They have a further right to ask for further information if the medical information that is received is unclear. Dr. Mathai’s letter invited anyone with questions about the letter to contact her. MTCC 869 did write to Dr. Mathai but only to verify that she had authored the letter, which was verified by the medical clinic.
In her evidence, Ms. Panagiotou described symptoms that are more significant than those mentioned by Dr. Mathai. I have considered whether this required clarification and have decided it does not. The reason for this is that I am satisfied that Ms. Panagiotou has a disability that falls under the definition of disability in the Code. It is not necessary to determine the exact nature of Ms. Panagiotou’s symptoms.
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 869 v. Copsas, Panagiotou, 2026 ONCAT 10