Landlord sued for disallowing medical pets

[intheweeds]

I think the landlord is being pretty reasonable. Having a pet can mean the potential for damage to the apartment, plus there's already a no pets allowed rule.

In many cases, "no pets allowed" rules don't apply to medical animals like seeing eye dogs. I'm not sure whether or not that would also apply to a "medically prescribed" emotional support dog, but that's for the courts to decide. I have a hunch that the landlord will lose.

This was my thought as well. The law where I am says you can't bring an animal into any establishment that serves food or drinks to humans, but even they have to allow guide dogs and other service animals by law. There is no place in Ontario that you cannot bring a service dog. I have seen some dubious looking 'service harnesses' on dogs get around the no pets laws, I'm sure if it truly was medically prescribed, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Off-topic, aren't you the guy who made the thread "Ask a policeman" or something like that, where we could ask legal-related questions, OP? Nice to see you again.

On-topic, I'm siding with the family on this one...IF the dog was actually prescribed. If it was only suggested as a possible means of support, well, they don't have any leg to stand on. And just saying "they can find another place"...well, real estate, at least where I'm at, is not a good market. Sometimes, there aren't really any other options in the budget. And for a family that has a daughter with cerebral palsy, they probably have a tight budget.

 

[Raggedstar]

Just throwing this out there since it seems not everyone is familiar with service animals.

The thing is about service and working animals is that they're somewhat above the status regular pets do (in fact, "pet" is a bit of a loose term to describe them). Odds are you spent $100-1500 on a pet dog from a breeder or shelter. Seeing eye, seizure detection, autism, etc, dogs can go up to and over $15,000 (that's why most families resort to fundraising). They go through a lot of training, and part of that training is to go towards ensuring the animal doesn't get into those nasty behaviours that would normally make landlords angry (like chewing up furniture, barking, biting, etc). The animals aren't robots, but for sure many of them can't be compared to a typical pet. If an autistic child is running away from his parents, the dog (who is often tethered to the child) stays calm and doesn't move. If someone's service dog is to go into a resteraunt or plane, they're expected to lie down and wait quietly. If there are dogs, wailing children, or squirrels running by them, they don't react to it like a regular dog would.

The only thing they can't stop doing is creating allergies.

 

[lacktheknack]

The land lord is in the right. If he had that rule before the lady even moved in then she knew that she was not allowed a pet. End 'o story.
However, since they are crying discrimination and because the kid is crippled or whatever the hell it is, the landlord is gonna lose. Not because he is in the wrong but because the other side gets to pull a fucking sob story.

Fun Fact: In my University, there's a residence conduit that connects two sections of campus. ABSOLUTELY NO PETS ALLOWED. They've never been allowed. Except for the blind student with the seeing eye dog, he's fine.

Same thing here. This isn't "a pet", this is "prescribed medical equipment" (and if you're going to deny the healing powers of a pet, go lrn2psychology).

 

[Davih]

*ahem* [http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/256]

Hmm, wasn't aware of that.

It still sounds like the mother is using her daughter to be allowed a pet. Since we do not know if a pet dog has been "medically prescribed" (I don't believe having a pet would have a major affect on someones health)or not then we cannot say who is in the right or the wrong.
If it has been "medically prescribed" then the landlord is in the wrong, if it hasn't then he is in the right.

 

[QuantumT]

*ahem* [http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/256]

Hmm, wasn't aware of that.

It still sounds like the mother is using her daughter to be allowed a pet. Since we do not know if a pet dog has been "medically prescribed" (I don't believe having a pet would have a major affect on someones health)or not then we cannot say who is in the right or the wrong.
If it has been "medically prescribed" then the landlord is in the wrong, if it hasn't then he is in the right.

In this case the dog has been medically prescribed.

As for effects on someone's health, studies have shown these benefits (among others):

* lower cholesterol
* lower blood pressure
* lower triglyceride
* reduced stress levels
* reduced feelings of loneliness
* better mental health
* increased activity

 

[Cowabungaa]

Medical pets are still pets that damage property. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard but I think the landlord is right. The lease, i'm sure, says 'absolutely no pets' (or at least dogs) not 'only certain kinds of pets.' All the reasons a landlord would put 'no pets' on the agreement, such as property damage, allergen control, etc are still true even if it's a therapy pet.

No, they're working dogs or service animals, not pets. That's a huge difference. Specially trained to not do all those things and help the owner live his/her life. It's like taking someone's wheelchair or walking cane away. This dog is medical equipment, not some living equivalent of a teddybear.

 

[ace_of_something]

Medical pets are still pets that damage property. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard but I think the landlord is right. The lease, i'm sure, says 'absolutely no pets' (or at least dogs) not 'only certain kinds of pets.' All the reasons a landlord would put 'no pets' on the agreement, such as property damage, allergen control, etc are still true even if it's a therapy pet.

No, they're working dogs or service animals, not pets. That's a huge difference. Specially trained to not do all those things and help the owner live his/her life. It's like taking someone's wheelchair or walking cane away. This dog is medical equipment, not some living equivalent of a teddybear.

They still shed. If other tenants specifically live there because of allergens. Not very fair to them is it?

 

[Cowabungaa]

They still shed. If other tenants specifically live there because of allergens. Not very fair to them is it?

But it is fair to forbid something that she needs to live her life? It's easier to buy anti-allergen meds, try to keep away from allergic tennants and to clean thoroughly to minimise the risk of allergic reactions from other tennants than to replace such medical equipment with something non-living, which isn't even possible.

Should the family try to work with other tennants if there are indeed tennants who are allergic to dogs? Yes, it's still a two-way street. Are there no such tennants? In that case the landlord is just being an asshole. Again, this isn't just some cuddle thing, it's a medical necessity.

 

[Kargathia]

Fascinating how complete judgements are passed out based on single words.

We don't know jack squat about any of the oh-so-many details that could change everything, and still they're happily quoted to prove points on both side of the spectrum.

Let's throw out a few examples:

- The landlord was offering them the option to pay extra. How much? It's never mentioned, but it can easily be anything from "minor fee to cover coping with dog hairs" to "extortionate".

- Is this the kind of support animal that's extensively trained to perform a special task? It's said nowhere. The only thing flouted is "support dog", and I sincerely doubt the writer of the article is an expert on service dogs.
It might be specially trained to the point where it will never cause trouble, it might be the cutest puppy from the shelter. Who knows?

- Did the family move in with the dog, or was the dog prescribed when they already lived there for years? It's mentioned nowhere, but still I see assumptions brought up to serve as argument.

- Are we even sure that a dog in one apartment can cause an allergic neighbour to start having attacks? It sounds a bit far-fetched to me - even on the assumption that there could be somebody living there who needs hospitalization as soon as he sniffs a dog.

All in all it certainly is an interesting legal and moral question, but without a few clarifications to fill these gaping holes I'm going to have to be pretty sceptic of any discussion.

 

[TehCookie]

It really depends on the dog. If it's a service dog, those are well trained and shouldn't cause problems. If it's just a random puppy for companionship, I say get a rodent or some other quiet, non-destructive animal.

 

[cdstephens]

Even if it says "Absolutely no pets allowed", that only applies to recreational pets. If it's medically prescribed or necessary, then it's discrimination if they're kicking them out based on that fact.

If a blind person moved into an apartment and later got a seeing eye dog, and the landlord tried to kick him out for that, that would be discrimination because the blind person specifically needs that dog.

And besides, it's a freaking little girl with a mental disorder. Let her have a puppy for God's sakes and be a compassionate human being.

Overall though, it would depend on the circumstances. If the fee is like 5 or 10 bucks a month, then ok. If it's a huge, aggressive dog, then I can understand. And if the family *knew* that their child would get a support dog in the future, then the landlord would have ground to stand on. Otherwise, I doubt he'll win.

 

[Raijha]

There are really just too many missing details to make a call on this one. It's hard to see who might be right or wrong without knowing all the facts.

Personally, I do think the girl should probably be allowed to have her dog. I tend to agree that specialized support animals really aren't on the level of anything that could possibly be considered a pet, the training and conditioning that goes into an animal like that, it would not be a problem beyond the shedding, and it doesn't even say what kind of unit they are in, if its a townhome, how is the dog shedding in the home almost exclusively going to affect anyone else's allergies? Like I said, just too many missing details.---EDIT nvm it did say it was an apartment building, yea, I could see some issues with that coming up.

But, I have to say, sort of similar idea, disabled man in wheelchair lives in a no smoking unit. No problem right? What happens when/if he gets prescribed medical marijuana for severe pain (say he was disabled in an accident, spine completely shattered or something, while he lived in the unit). How many of you who have said this girl shouldn't be allowed to have her dog (even if it was prescribed as a neccessity on the same level) would boot this man from his apartment? He has no way to afford higher rent, hes in a wheelchair, little to no mobility, he can't just go to a buddy's house to smoke up, and he might not be able to afford an increase in rent to cover any extra cleaning costs. Should this man also be booted from his home? or forced to find a new place to move, when he obviously wouldn't be able to actually complete the move, or afford it? Or is there, sometimes, points when the rules can be bent in extraordinary circumstances? Just for a little deeper debate on the issue/some insight.

 

[evilneko]

$200 deposit and $25/mo extra rent according to this source: http://www.kgan.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kgan_vid_7645.shtml

Landlord's definitely in the wrong legally, without a doubt.

BTW, OP, it's best to provide a link to the story you're quoting so people can see whether you quoted the full text or not.

 

[GigaHz]

I take my stand with the landlord.

There was a 'No-Pets Allowed' policy. That's all there is to it. Doesn't matter what spin you put on it. If you require an animal for whatever reason, you can go live somewhere else. Otherwise, the policy wouldn't be there in the first place.

Finding a similar place to live is really not that difficult. Not fair that some money hungry dick is going to exploit their daughter's illness and a legal loophole for the sake of profiting off a landlord.