THUNDER BAY — With a degree of reluctance, a tribunal has decided a woman whose dog defecated and urinated on the balcony of her Thunder Bay condominium building must remove her pet from the premises.
"Removal of a pet is a serious matter," a member of the Condominium Authority of Ontario tribunal observed after ruling on an application from the condominium corporation.
The case was rooted in the concerns of a resident on the floor below.
After moving into her unit In 2023, she noticed water dripping from the balcony above hers, and that it often struck her balcony railing.
From speaking with other residents of the complex, the woman learned the dog's owner allowed it to relieve itself on the deck, then washed the feces and urine away with buckets of water.
Some of the contaminated water, in turn, fell onto the complainant's balcony, making her reluctant to spend time there, and causing her to avoid touching the railing at all.
"This activity...has impacted her use and enjoyment of her balcony," CAO tribunal vice-chair Patricia McQuaid stated in her reasons for decision released last week.
According to the document, the complainant reported the problem to management in September 2023, and unsuccessfully tried to discuss the issue with her neighbour.
The problem abated through the following winter, but resurfaced in the spring of 2024.
After a new condo manager took over in June 2024, the complainant again reached out for a resolution, resulting in a letter to the dog's owner asking her to stop letting it relieve itself on her balcony and to stop cleaning it in a way that impacted units below.
A company hired by the property manager used a hydraulic lift to inspect the balconies, and reported seeing animal feces scattered about.
Ultimately, five more letters were sent, noting that under the condominium's rules, owners are responsible for immediately cleaning any mess left on common elements by their pets.
After attempts to speak with the dog owner remained unsuccessful, she was sent a letter stating the condo board had deemed her dog to be a nuisance, and requesting that it be removed within two weeks.
The request was ignored.
In March 2025, the complainant again noticed water dripping from the balcony above onto her railing, and that where it froze on the railing, it resembled urine, as it was yellow in colour.
McQuaid commented in the reasons for her decision that when an animal is removed "the impact on the pet owner can be considerable, and it is therefore very desirable than an owner participate in the hearing where these issues will be determined."
She noted the respondent in this instance had initially participated in mediation, but appeared to have stopped taking part when no resolution was reached, despite being given every opportunity to do so.
"Therefore, the case has been decided on the basis of the evidence" provided by the condominium corporation, she wrote.
"The evidence before me supports a finding that the respondent allows her dog to defecate on the balcony; the photographs show that clean-up is by no means immediate; there has been an accumulation of dog feces on the balcony...in violation of Rule 1.30" of the Condominium Act which governs pets.
McQuaid also found a violation of Rule 1.8 of the same act, which prohibits condo owners and visitors from permitting a nuisance that disturbs the comfort or quiet enjoyment of units by other owners.
She said the condo corporation did not take this step lightly, and that neither did she in making an order for the pet's removal
"There is some indication the respondent seldom leaves her unit, and is averse to interactions with other people," she noted.
"The attachment to her dog is likely very strong. However, the expectations of the unit owner who has a pet, as set out in the rules, are not particularly onerous. There were, and perhaps still could be, ways to resolve this issue short of removal of the dog," she suggested.
Barring a new effort to settle the problem, the tribunal's June 4 decision gave the woman 30 days to permanently remove the dog from her unit.
She was ordered to pay the condominium corporation's $200 tribunal filing fee, but the CAO rejected the corporation's request that she also reimburse it for almost $6,200 in legal costs.
