Or Is It More So?
Last week, I did a posting on the case of Doug McCue here. It seems that here in Ontario, his allergy to dogs was not sufficient for him to deny a woman and her husband a room at his B&B in Perth, Ontario on July 5, 2008. It was less about the dog, than it was about the husband, who was blind. So, the Ontario Human Rights Commission arbitrated a settlement which saw Mr. McCue pay $700 to the Complainants, who had a bull dog for a lawyer, figuratively not literally.
Well, in BC, a couple with a service dog, who were denied the rental of an apartment in BC were then denied their Complaint at the BC HRT, as reported by a local news outlet here. Chalk one up for sanity, but why?
Well, the BC HRT actually believed the landlord's case that his dog Tango was very territorial, which he had explained to the prospective tenants. As the tenants would have to pass through Tango's protected territory to get to their apartment, the prospective landlord refused to rent to them. Undaunted, they filed a Complaint with the BC HRT. Why not, there's gold in them thar hills.
Not this time. It surprised me that the tenant's fake right to live where they wanted with their service dog, meaning there must have been a disability on behalf of one of the tenants to be, was trumped by the landlord's property rights, and dog. I am surprised that they did not require him to pay for all their pain and suffering, and also have his dog put down. After all they were being victimized by this dog, and owner.
So, it may take two to Tango, but in this case the BC HRT halted the music. I'd say good on you BC HRT, but tomorrow's another day, and it's not called the left coast for nothing.