The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to enforce its pet rule and permanently remove the respondent's dog, alleging the dog's barking constituted a nuisance.
The respondent argued the enforcement was unreasonable, the complaints were unfounded, and the dog was an emotional support animal.
The Tribunal found that the condominium corporation failed to act reasonably, as it did not independently verify the noise complaints, relied solely on the subjective experiences of two neighbours, and inconsistently applied its definition of a nuisance.
The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.