June 13, 2025 – WNCC 37 Loses Appeal on All Counts
Overview
It turns out, that the appeal was completely meritless. On June 13, 2025, the Ontario Divisional Court of Justice dismissed the appeal filed by Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 (WNCC 37). The appeal challenged a 2024 ruling by the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) in WNCC 37 v. Baha et al. The Divisional Court upheld the CAT’s decision in its entirety.
This decision is expected to serve as a landmark case for service dog accommodations in condominiums across Canada, reinforcing the legal protections owed to individuals who rely on verified service animals.
Key Findings and Issues
- False and Unsubstantiated Claims:
The case included unsupported noise complaints and incorrect allegations about the number and size of dogs involved, primarily brought forward by the then-President of the Board, Mr. Bohnert. - Failure to Apply the Law:
WNCC 37 ignored its own governing documents, which permit service animals, and instead relied on pet restriction rules that do not apply to service animals under the Ontario Condominium Act, 1998. - Challenge to Valid Service Animal:
The Board repeatedly attempted to undermine the legitimacy of the service dog, despite it having an established, verifiable record of over 500 pet-restricted visits across Canada, and being granted access to flights, ferries, trains, and courtrooms. - Excessive Medical Demands:
The Corporation improperly demanded more medical documentation than is legally required for accommodation under the Ontario Human Rights Code, constituting a serious human rights violation. - Discriminatory Treatment and Financial Impact:
The CAT found the Corporation’s conduct discriminatory and awarded $15,000 in damages. The Divisional Court upheld that award and further ordered WNCC 37 to pay the respondents’ legal costs for the appeal.
Financial Impact on Owners
- The Corporation is estimated to have spent $170,000 in legal and procedural costs.
- Approximately $80,000 on the CAT case.
- An additional $90,000 on the appeal, which was unsuccessful.
- These costs were incurred without prior notice to owners, in breach of Section 23 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which requires owner notice before commencing litigation.
Governance and Legal Consequences
- The Board failed to provide meaningful disclosure to owners about the legal proceedings and associated costs, undermining transparency and potentially breaching its duty of good faith.
- The Board’s actions may expose directors to personal liability, as the Corporation’s failure to notify owners and act in their best interest contravenes the fiduciary duties imposed by the Condominium Act, 1998.
Broader Significance
This case reinforces the following:
- Service dogs are not pets under Ontario law and must be accommodated under the Human Rights Code.
- Condominium corporations must follow both the Condominium Act and Human Rights Code, and cannot impose extra legal or medical barriers to justified accommodation requests.
- The case sets a precedent that discrimination and procedural unfairness will be met with damages, legal cost awards, and potential reputational risk.
