The Rise of Emotional Support Animal Claims (and the Chicken that Started a Legal Conversation)

I spent last weekend at the Canadian Condominium Institute's North Alberta Condominium Expo, where I had the pleasure of presenting on bylaw interpretation and enforcement. As often happens, the formal session spilled over into hallway conversations, coffee breaks, and—eventually—the legal panel at the end of the day.

One topic kept resurfacing: the sharp rise in human rights–based claims for emotional support animals in condominiums that have clear, enforceable no‑pet bylaws. Most of these claims are legitimate and should be treated seriously. Some, however, are plainly attempts to sidestep agreed‑upon restrictions in the bylaws.

During the legal panel, my friend and colleague Hugh Willis summed things up perfectly with his prediction that the next big claim in Alberta would be for an emotional support chicken—adding that his own preferred emotional support chicken comes in a bucket, consisting of ten crispy, delicious pieces.

That comment came back to me almost immediately when I recently re-read York Condominium Corporation No. 288 v Archambeau, Sardouk ("York"), a 2025 decision of Ontario’s Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). The case raises a serious question for Alberta stakeholders: how far does the duty to accommodate really go when a no‑pet bylaw meets a questionable support‑animal claim?

The Ontario Decision: No Pets Means No Pets—Unless Accommodation Is Proven

In York, the condominium corporation had a strict declaration and rule prohibiting animals entirely. The occupant sought to keep a dog, asserting it was an “emotional support animal” required for medical reasons.

What followed is important. The corporation did not reflexively deny the request. Instead, it:

• Asked for supporting medical documentation;
• Attempted to verify the legitimacy of that documentation; and
• Provided the occupant with multiple opportunities to substantiate the accommodation request.

The problem? The medical notes could not be authenticated, and one was directly confirmed to be unauthentic. On that evidentiary record, the CAT ordered the permanent removal of the dog and awarded costs against the respondents ($4,200 in total). Notably, the Tribunal also declined to make broader orders where procedural steps (such as proper notice) had not been proven, underscoring that fairness still matters even when enforcement succeeds.

This was not a case where the Tribunal minimized human rights obligations. Rather, it reinforced a principle that Alberta boards often struggle to articulate: an accommodation must be established, not assumed.

What Would Alberta Do with a Case Like This?

While Ontario CAT decisions are not binding in Alberta, they can be persuasive, particularly where Alberta’s own jurisprudence points in a similar direction. That said, Alberta’s legal landscape is more complicated.

On the one hand, Alberta courts strongly support the enforcement of condominium bylaws when boards act reasonably, consistently, and in good faith, and bylaws do not conflict with provincial legislation. On the other hand, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has made it clear that condominium corporations are fully subject to the Alberta Human Rights Act, and that missteps in accommodation can be costly.

A frequently cited Alberta example is Hart v Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 (o/a Westmount Place) ("Hart"), where a condominium corporation strictly enforced a no‑pet bylaw against an owner who produced a very thin medical note stating she required an “emotional support dog for medical reason.” The Tribunal found discrimination and ordered significant remedies, including damages for injury to dignity, bylaw review, and mandatory training for board members.

From an Alberta perspective, Hart is often unsettling. The evidentiary bar for triggering the duty to accommodate was low, while the consequences of getting the process wrong were severe. But Hart does not mean Alberta law requires boards to accept every support‑animal claim at face value.

What Alberta jurisprudence as well as the recent Ontario CAT decisions consistently emphasize is process:

• Boards must make meaningful inquiries;
• Accommodation requests must be assessed individually;
• Owners and occupants have obligations to provide reasonable supporting information; and
• Boards are entitled to authenticate the documentation they receive.

In that sense, the York decision aligns well with Alberta principles—particularly the idea that accommodation requires cooperation and credible evidence, not self‑declaration.

A Word About Alberta’s New Condominium Tribunal

So where does this leave Alberta condo owners, boards, managers, and counsel?

The key takeaway is this: A duty to accommodate is not a duty to surrender enforcement. But it is a duty to engage seriously, fairly, compassionately, and with evidence.

Boards should not dismiss emotional support animal claims out of hand, as doing so risks significant liability for the corporation. At the same time, owners and occupants should not assume that invoking “human rights” creates an automatic exemption from clear bylaw restrictions.

Accommodation is a two‑way street. It requires dignity, dialogue, and documentation. And for now, at least in Alberta, emotional support chickens are probably still best enjoyed with fries and extra napkins, rather than in the elevator.

If your condominium corporation has not reviewed its accommodation and no-pet enforcement policies recently, this is the time to do it. Proactive governance and clear procedures today may prevent costly human rights complaints and enforcement disputes tomorrow. For guidance on reviewing your condominium’s policies or responding to accommodation requests, please contact me at eberney@fieldlaw.com.