Today we perfected our appeal.
When we began this process, we walked into it believing something simple: that the law protects people from harassment and discrimination, especially when they are vulnerable.
What we received instead was a ruling that raises serious questions.
🐕 “Share One Dog”
One of the most troubling aspects of the reasoning is the suggestion that two disabled residents could simply “share one dog.”
Let’s apply the same logic elsewhere.
Would anyone suggest that two disabled residents should share one cane?
🦯 “You can both use it, just take turns.”
Would anyone suggest that two residents should share a wheelchair?
♿ “One in the morning, one in the afternoon.”
Of course not.
Yet somehow, when the disability involves mental health, the standard suddenly changes.
Why?
🧠 Mental Health Is Health
A service dog is not a convenience.
It is not a lifestyle choice.
It is a medical support that performs a function assisting a disability.
The law does not rank disabilities.
🫀 Heart disease is real.
🦴 A broken spine is real.
🧠 Mental illness is just as real.
So why is it treated as negotiable?
Suggesting that disabled residents should share the support that allows them to function is not accommodation.
It is the opposite.
🏥 Kicking Someone When They Are Down
The ruling also concludes that the corporation’s conduct was “not disrespectful of the disability.”
That is extremely difficult to reconcile with the reality.
At the time these events unfolded, the resident involved was also undergoing cancer treatment.
A humane board would de-escalate.
A humane board would show empathy.
A humane board would attempt real accommodation.
Instead, the conflict escalated.
When someone is already down, you do not keep hitting them.
Yet somehow this was found acceptable.
⚠️ Why This Appeal Matters
This appeal is not simply about one dispute.
If this reasoning stands, it creates a dangerous precedent:
📌 Service dogs could be treated as interchangeable or “shareable.”
📌 Mental health disabilities could be treated as less legitimate than physical ones.
📌 Condominium boards could escalate conflict with vulnerable residents and still claim they acted reasonably.
That cannot be allowed to stand.
🏛️ Not Just For Us
We filed this appeal because the consequences extend far beyond our own situation.
If this decision remains unchallenged, the damage will not stop here.
It will affect every disabled condominium owner in Ontario who may one day need accommodation.
And that is why we will continue this fight.
Not just for ourselves – but for every resident whose disability deserves the same dignity and respect as anyone else’s. ⚖️
🔹 And Bluevale – You Stood by It
You stood by it when the questions began.
You stood by it when the facts were presented.
You stood by it when the consequences became impossible to ignore.
Not once did you stop to ask whether the person affected deserved understanding, fairness, or dignity. Not once did you step back and reconsider. Instead, you held your position — firmly, publicly, and without hesitation.
🪞 You Are the Company You Keep
There is an old truth that has survived generations because it rarely fails:
You are the company you keep
The people and institutions we stand beside say something about who we are. When we choose to align ourselves with certain actions, certain decisions, certain behaviors, we are also choosing the values that come with them.
