An Airdrie family is bewildered that a beloved emotional support pet will be evicted from their condominium.
Following a recent decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Calgary, siding with the board of Iron Horse Condominiums that directed her dog Charlie must be removed, Brenda Clayton said she felt the system was stacked against her.
“I’m still really in shock over it,” she said. “I don’t understand how there could not have been just even a slight bit of compassion there somewhere.”
According to the decision by Master in Chambers J.L Mason, the issue was “a case of a couple who misunderstood the rules and, in the throes of personal tragedy, purchased a new dog without getting the requisite approval of the board, or registering the dog.”
Clayton said she and her husband purchased the condo in 2000 and moved in, along with a dog, in 2002. At the time, the complex allowed approved dogs. When their first dog passed away in 2008, the Claytons replaced it with another.
According to the court decision, in the summer of 2015, the Iron Horse Condominium Corporation began a transition to becoming a “no dog” complex, adopting a pet policy that no longer permitted dogs in any of the Iron Horse Condominium buildings, with any previously-existing dogs grandfathered in. Additionally, all pets were required to be registered with Astoria Asset Management.
Written notice of the new policy was supplied to residents of the complex. Under the new rule, the Claytons’ dog was grandfathered in, but the family was under the impression that they, as dog-owners, were grandfathered in.
In August 2017, the Claytons’ youngest son passed away suddenly of a heart attack, and a month later, their dog was diagnosed with cancer and had to be put down.
“We replaced him with another blonde Cocker [Charlie] and, unfortunately, we did not see the need to contact anyone to get approval or re-register him, as we had been approved for a dog since 2000,” Clayton stated in a letter that appeared in the court’s record.
According to the court document, Charlie was purchased as a support dog and is registered as a support dog under the Assistance Dogs of America organization. Clayton received a doctor’s letter in July 2018 stating she “needs a companion/emotional therapy dog,” as well as another letter from psychologist Naheed Jawed backing up that opinion.
“Given the supportive nature of the relationship with her dog and the role he currently fulfills for her (i.e. she reported that he helps her maintain daily functioning, [Clayton] would psychologically benefit from having her dog continue to live with her as she undergoes these stressors,” Jawed wrote in his letter, noting the opinion did not “constitute a diagnostic assessment.”
Unfortunately, the Assistance Dogs of America organization is not accredited under Alberta’s Service Dog Act, and thus Charlie does not meet the requirements of a qualified service dog – a fact the Claytons don’t dispute.
According to Kassandra Kitz, press secretary with Alberta’s Ministry of Community and Social Services, qualified service dogs that have been trained to support those diagnosed with a disability are the only dogs with guaranteed public-access rights. Further, she said, individual businesses and organizations in the province can establish their own policies on whether to allow dogs at their facilities.
“While all dogs can provide emotional support, this alone is not sufficient to obtain public-access rights,” she said, confirming as well that emotional support animals are not accredited in Alberta.
According to the court document, the condo board issued a notice to the Claytons June 26 of that year that the dog must be removed, which Clayton said happened around the time of her father’s funeral. In October 2018, Clayton advised the property manager that she would not get rid of her dog, and a subsequent notice was issued by the condo board Nov. 8, 2018, eventually leading to the court battle.
The condominium board declined to be interviewed.
“It is unfortunate that the Claytons did not understand that the board was no longer granting approval for dogs,” Mason wrote in his decision. “However, they were made aware that their prior dog (who was in existence at the time that the pet policy was adopted and accordingly was entitled to be grandfathered) had to be registered with the property manager, and they proceeded to do so. They have never claimed to be unaware of the pet bylaw, which requires board approval for pets.”
“The Court is very sympathetic to the Claytons’ situation,” Mason wrote later. “It is apparent that their dog is a cherished member of their family. But that is not a sufficient reason to dismiss the application of the condominium corporation in the circumstances.”
Mason ruled the Claytons have until Feb. 29 to find a new home for Charlie.
While acknowledging they had misunderstood their condo’s pet policy, Clayton said she was nevertheless devastated with the Court’s decision.
“I just really don’t understand any of this and why they did it,” she said. “I just can’t handle any more loss right now. I lost my son, my dog, my dad…and now they tell me I have to get rid of this one.”
Clayton maintains she will not get rid of her dog, and her and her husband will be living in their trailer for the time being in the hopes that things change.
“Everybody knows the companionship you get from an animal, and how well they’re needed – people take them to visit people in hospitals,” Clayton said. “It’s recognized that they are a huge emotional support for people.”
