With a recent human rights case in Alberta, there is now more legal clarity around emotional support animal situations.
For cat lovers, there’s nothing like the feeling of having an edgy predator melt into a warm loaf in one’s lap, purring for kisses and cuddles. For some, maybe the sleepy sight of a fuzzy rabbit or the steely touch of a slithering snake sparks joy. (Spark joy, popularized by tidying expert and author, Marie Kondo, is a loose translation of the Japanese term, tokimeku – meaning the feeling of “flutter in your heart” or “your heart beats.”) In any case, there is no denying that we humans can develop special emotional bonds with animals in our everyday lives.
Often, it takes time for the law to catch up with everyday life and emerging, novel situations – and situations involving emotional support animals are no exception. Years ago, I wrote about renting with assistance and support animals and whether landlords had to accommodate tenants with such animals. In Alberta, provincial law protects disabled tenants’ use of qualified service or guide dogs. But it gets messy in situations involving other types of animals, like companion, emotional support, or therapy animals. I also noted that the law was still developing, especially under human rights law, where landlords may have a duty to accommodate disabled persons with these other types of animals. At the time, there were no publicly reported cases in Alberta involving such situations.
The Hart Case: An emotional support dog in a condo
To gather up all the breadcrumbs, Alberta now has a case that helps clarify the legal issues that come up with emotional support animals. In Hart v Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation, 2025 AHRC 52 (Hart), the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) weighed in on situation involving a visually impaired condo owner and her dog.
In Hart, the owner lived in a condo complex with a “no animal bylaw.” She sought accommodation from her condo board for her dog. The owner informally trained the dog to guide and help her, and the dog had training from rescue people before that. However, the dog was not a certified service dog or guide dog. The dog was more than a mobility aid for the owner in her everyday life – the dog was “everything” to her. In the owner’s medical note, her doctor noted that she needed “an emotional support dog for medical reason” and had the dog “as an emotional support animal.”
Although the condo board knew the owner might have a vision impairment, they did not think her note was enough to support her request. The board did not follow up with getting more information to understand her request. They also fined and sued her for breaking the condo’s no animal bylaw. The condominium corporation’s fines against the owner only came to an end after the dog passed away. The owner then made a human rights complaint against the condo corporation. The issue before the Commission was whether the condo corporation discriminated against the owner and whether it met its procedural duty to accommodate her. Throughout the case, the Commission discussed key legal principles, including the procedural duty to accommodate and the primacy of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
Condo corporation collides with human rights law
The Commission first set out that the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”) applies to the condo corporation, and that it cannot discriminate under section 4 the Act. This section does not allow discrimination in goods, services, accommodation or facilities available to the public (which includes the owner, who is a member of the public). To prove discrimination, a complainant (person making the complaint) must show three things:
- They have a protected characteristic (based on a protected ground) under the Alberta Human Rights Act.
- They experienced an adverse (negative) impact.
- Their protected disability was a factor in the adverse impact.
If the complainant can show this, the burden then shifts to the respondent (in this case, the condo corporation) to prove it tried to accommodate the complainant up to the point of “undue hardship.” The duty to accommodate is a legal duty to change rules, standards, policies, workplace culture and physical environments to reduce or eliminate the negative impact that someone faces because of a protected ground.
In this case, the Commission found that:
- The owner had a physical disability of visual impairment, which was a protected characteristic under the Act.
- The Commission found that the condo corporation’s legal proceedings and its failure to assess her accommodation were negative effects.
- These negative effects were connected to the owner’s use of her dog for medical reasons.
The Commission determined that the condominium corporation discriminated against the owner.
The duty to accommodate: a shared process
The Commission then turned to the accommodation process. The medical information needed to support accommodation depends on the facts of the case. However, the person asking for accommodation must provide, at a minimum:
- medical information certifying a disability
- the general nature of the disability, and
- the limits it creates (in terms of nature and scope).
The person seeking accommodation from a service provider must provide the required medical information. But there are times, as part of the procedural duty to accommodate, when a service provider may need to ask for more information about the request.
Here, the owner’s medical note had limited information, but the condo board should have followed up to get more details from her to understand her request. The Commission held that the condo corporation had a duty to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship, but it ended its procedural duty to accommodate her without getting information to assess her disability and accommodation needs.
The Alberta Human Rights Act takes precedence (has priority)
The Commission further discussed another fundamental point about the Alberta Human Rights Act – it has special “quasi-constitutional” status and takes precedence (has priority) over condo bylaws. Condo bylaws cannot circumvent (bypass) the Act. If the bylaws conflict with the Act, the Act prevails.
Even though the situation was novel for the condo corporation and it had a no animal bylaw, the Commission held that it couldn’t just clear itself of the duty to accommodate.
The ruling
The Commission acknowledged that the owner’s medical note had limited detail. Even so, it found that the condo corporation should have done more by asking questions and further engaging with the owner to better understand her request. In this case, the condo corporation discriminated against the owner and failed in its procedural duty to accommodate her.
The Tribunal ordered the condo corporation to pay $15,000 in general damages for injury to the owner’s dignity and to:
- Review its bylaws to make sure it follows the Act and its duty to accommodate
- Complete human rights training
- Distribute the Commission’s policy on the “Duty to accommodate in goods and services” to the condo board and all its committees
Cleaning up the takeaways
The Hart case raises general questions about emotional support and service animals in a tenancy situation – after all, this was a case involving a condo owner and a dog in a condo. While the Commission did not make a broad ruling on the use or accommodation of an emotional support dog, a service dog, or a reliance on a dog as a mobility aid for accommodation, it focused on the accommodation process. Nevertheless, the case has fundamental takeaways about human rights law for everyone to learn from:
- The duty to accommodate is a shared process between the person seeking accommodation and the service provider.
- It is up to the person seeking accommodation from a service provider to provide the required medical information.
- When a service provider receives an accommodation request, it must take steps to accommodate the person to the point of undue hardship. For example, this may mean asking for more information about their needs or following up to get more information.
- The Alberta Human Rights Act has quasi-constitutional status and takes precedence (has priority). If a law conflicts with the Act, the Act prevails.
- Service providers must follow human rights law and cannot simply excuse themselves from their responsibilities – even if it’s a novel situation they are dealing with.
Whether you are a condo board or owner, landlord or tenant, or housing provider, you can learn more about your human rights and responsibilities on the Alberta Human Rights Commission website. The following resources are especially relevant for tidying up your own knowledge in this area of law:
Looking for more information?
Looking for articles like this one to be delivered right to your inbox? SUBSCRIBE NOW!
DISCLAIMER The information in this article was correct at time of publishing. The law may have changed since then. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNow or the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta.
About Judy Feng
