By Glinda Bylawson (when Iām not being slandered by Mildred at Board meetings)
Well dears, put the kettle on and prepare for yet another thrilling episode of Condo Clowns: The Blenvale Chronicles. This weekās feature? The Board spent $170,000 of your money to battleā¦ a service dog. Yes, really. Not embezzlement, not structural repairs, not even another potted plant budget scandal. A dog.
Not just any dog, mind you. A professionally trained, legally protected service animal with more emotional intelligence than our entire Boardroom combined. A dog that couldāve been approved faster than you can say āreasonable accommodationā – if only common sense werenāt barred from entry to our building.
Instead, we got 30 months of bureaucratic barking – and a starring performance from the former Board President, the one and only Bite Barker, who launched a personal crusade that makes Moby Dick look like a minor disagreement over parking.
š ACT I: Bite Barker and the Case of the Phantom Hounds
Our drama opens with Bite Barker making unsubstantiated noise complaints, clutching his clipboard like Excalibur, and spinning tales of a ācanine compoundā taking over Unit 510. I believe the phrase used was ā3-4 large dogs.ā Reality check: it was a single dog, under 55 pounds.
Did the Board acknowledge the actual rule that allows service animals? Of course not. They dusted off an irrelevant pet rule from the Jurassic era and wielded it like it was scripture, ignoring the small fact that service dogs arenāt pets, legally or otherwise. But when has legality ever slowed this bunch down?
āļø ACT II: The CAT Has Claws
Enter the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), stage left. In a rare twist, justice actually prevailed. The CAT ruled the Corporationās conduct was discriminatory and oppressive, awarding $15,000 in damages and setting a landmark precedent in the process.
The takeaway? You cannot demand a medical dissertation and a dogās LinkedIn profile to approve a service animal. Who knew?
šļø ACT III: Appealapalooza – Because Losing Once Wasnāt Enough
Not satisfied with their defeat, the Board – led by Mildred and flanked by the ever-eager billables brigade at SueMore & BillMore – decided to appeal. Their new legal strategy? Discredit the judge. Yes, really. The appeal argued that the adjudicator was unfair, the process was rigged, and perhaps the moon was in retrograde.
Shockingly, the Divisional Court was not moved. They dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upheld the CAT decision in full, and ordered the Corporation to pay even more legal costs. One must assume the Boardās next argument will be that the judge was a Labrador in disguise.
šµļøāāļø Who Came Out on Top?
Not you. Not me. The only entities wagging their tails were SueMore & BillMore, counting their hours, and Bite Barker, smugly convinced he was defending condo civilization from the tyranny of a 55 pound dog.
This entire debacle – which should have taken 30 minutes and cost $0 – ended up costing $170,000 and took 30 months. All because someone got territorial over a service dog they didnāt understand and didnāt want it in his backyard.
š§ A Legal Legacy, Courtesy of Blenvaleās Brain Trust
But hereās the twist: thanks to Bite Barkerās relentless pettiness, weāve now gifted Canada a legal precedent. Yes, this case will be cited nationwide by service dog owners fighting back against condo board tyranny.
So congratulations, Blenvale Board. Youāve finally made a meaningful contribution to condo living – albeit unintentionally – and most certainly not ours.
š But Wait! Thereās Shadierā¦
Lest you think the spectacle ends there, allow me to remind you that Section 23 of the Condominium Act requires Boards to notify owners before commencing litigation. Our Board? They let us know five months after the legal wheels were already spinning. Ah yes, the classic Blenvale transparency: tell us nothing and hope the auditor doesn’t notice it.
š¶ Final Sniff
So what have we learned, dear neighbours? That your Board would rather torch $170,000 of your money than admit wrongdoing. That theyād rather challenge a disability accommodation than invest in anything that actually benefits the community. And that when faced with the opportunity to do the right thing, they will, with astonishing consistency, do the opposite.
Next time they cry poor and propose a 16% fee hike, just remember: it wasnāt inflation. It was ego. It was legal arrogance. It was Bite Barker.
With warmest regards and a very good girl at my feet,
Glinda
Disclaimer: This post is satire and opinion. Read full disclaimer.
