EDITORIAL – The right to own a service dog must be respected

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/04/2023 (765 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It’s an issue that the Manitoba Human Rights Commission says is not uncommon.

It revolves around the right to own a service dog and while the location and services all vary from case to case, there is often a common theme.

When people who rely on service dogs seek services or accommodation, they’re often told no, in almost all cases based on misconceptions.

Susan Stanley is dealing with that very issue. As a resident of Manoir St Pierre she was given permission by the administrator to have her service dog Marcus in her suite, despite living in a building with a firm no-pets policy. (It should be noted that pets are allowed to visit during the day, but do not have sleepover privileges).

The board fired off a letter evicting Marcus and threatening Susan herself with eviction if she didn’t toe the line.

In their letter they claim “that it is our understanding that this animal has not been specifically trained to provide assistance to a person with a disability”.

The dog has in fact been self-trained to assist with symptoms caused by PTSD. Not only did Susan inform the board of that fact but she presented a signed letter from a psychiatrist confirming she has PTSD and that a service dog can help.

They also claimed that the dog had been barking during the day and the night.

This too is being disputed by both the animal’s owner and the administrator who was aware of only one complaint.

Turns out the dog will let out a single “woof” to alert Susan when someone knocks on the door. That’s why she placed a sign on her door with her cell number, asking people to call instead of knocking.

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission confirms that a person who has a service animal has the right to enter a restaurant, store or other place where the public is allowed with their service animal. “No-pet” policies do not apply to service animals and hotel or motel operators and landlords should not ask for a deposit as they do with a pet.

Most importantly the Manitoba Human Rights Code has “special status over all other laws of the Province of Manitoba”.

There is no doubt that the board has erred in their decision to evict Marcus.

Proof of that can also be reluctance to talk with the media on this issue. The Carillon repeatedly reached out to board president Pierre Gagne and one of the board directors Anita Gagne, leaving messages and requesting a call.

There wasn’t so much as a “no-comment” thrown our way.

When someone is afraid to defend their position, it’s often because that position is indefensible.

Despite the evidence that they erred, one can see where they went wrong.

With little or no knowledge about service animals, they could easily have seen this request as a way for someone to sneak in a pet.

Coupled with a petition from other residents who no doubt were suffering from the same lack of information, they would feel the pressure. When a board has to choose between making one resident upset or angering more than half of residents, they’ll take the easy road most of the time.

But the excuse of ignorance only lasts for so long.

In her presentation to the board, Susan supplied all relevant information regarding her diagnosis, what her dog does for her and what the Manitoba Human Rights Code says regarding the situation.

Administrator Katherine Burelle also took a stand, warning the board that they must accept the dog, and any alternative decision would inevitably be overturned by the Human Rights Commission, but not before they look utterly ridiculous for clinging to their position.

After doing her research, Burelle knew a service dog must be allowed.

So convinced was she, that she refused to sign the letter ordering its removal and handed in her two weeks’ notice.

This situation does bring to light the fact that more education is needed regarding service dogs.

It’s important to know that in Manitoba there is no standardized identification or certification of service animals. Any animal that is identified as having been trained, including by the owner, to provide assistance to someone with a disability may be a service animal for the purpose of the Human Rights Code.

The only questions that are appropriate to ask is whether the dog is assisting the person with a disability and what assistance has the dog been trained to provide.

Service animals can only be excluded from an area that is also restricted to other members of the public such as food preparation areas, operating theatres or laboratories.

The owner of the dog must also effectively control the dog’s behaviour so there are no issues with barking, snapping, defecating or whining excessively.

There’s no doubt the board has made the wrong decision, and how they respond will say a lot about them.

If they’re able to admit they made a mistake, apologize for it, educate their other tenants on what service dogs are and why they’re not pets and allow Marcus back in they can become a good example.

That’s really the only option.