Elaine Jair

The applicant unit owner alleged she was experiencing unreasonable odours from vaping by the occupant of an adjacent unit, in violation of the condominium corporation's non-smoking rules.

She sought an order compelling the corporation to enforce its rules.

The Tribunal found that the evidence, including air quality testing results, did not establish the presence of unreasonable odours or that the adjacent occupant was vaping.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant unit owner sought an exemption from the condominium corporation's 'no pets' rule to accommodate her son's need for an emotional support animal (ESA).

The applicant acquired a Labrador dog expected to weigh 60-70 pounds.

The condominium corporation agreed to accommodate the ESA but imposed a 25-pound weight restriction.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation's Service Animal Policy and exemption procedures were invalid attempts to bypass statutory rule-making requirements, the 25-pound weight limit was a reasonable condition of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application on the basis that the Condominium Authority Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily concerning the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought an exemption from the corporation's pet rule to allow her son to keep an emotional support animal that exceeded the corporation's 25-pound weight limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that because the dispute involved the validity and enforceability of the corporation's pet rule and emotional support animal policy, it fell squarely within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.