Understanding Service Animals in Ontario: Legal Gaps, Misuse, and Balancing Human Rights

Sara Santos-Vigneault
Nov 24
4 min read

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: November 24, 2025

Man with cane and service dog sit on a bench in a park with yellow flowers. He's wearing sunglasses and a gray scarf, creating a calm vibe. — Photo by MART PRODUCTION

Ontario recognizes the rights of people with disabilities to use service animals in public, housing, and employment contexts. But the laws surrounding guide dogs, service animals, and emotional support animals are complex and often misunderstood.

The absence of a formal accreditation or registry system adds further confusion,

particularly when those with legitimate needs encounter skepticism, or when misuse creates conflict in shared spaces.

Legal Definitions: Guide Dogs vs. Service Animals vs. Support Animals

Ontario law draws distinctions between types of support animals:

Guide Dogs are defined under Regulation 58 of the Blind Persons' Rights Act and must be trained at accredited facilities. These dogs assist individuals with visual impairments. [4]
Service Animals include animals that assist people with disabilities other than visual impairments—including psychiatric, mobility, and medical alert needs. These are recognized under the Human Rights Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), even if they are self-trained. [5]
Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) or personal support animals do not automatically qualify for legal protections unless the person can prove a disability-related need and that the animal performs a specific function to accommodate it.

The AODA allows a person to establish service animal status by showing it is "readily apparent" the animal provides support, or by producing a letter from a regulated health professional.

Misuse and the Absence of an Accreditation System

Unlike guide dogs, which are regulated under Ontario’s Blind Persons’ Rights Act and must be trained by accredited organizations,

there is no equivalent regulation mandating behaviour, training, or accreditation standards for psychiatric, medical alert, or mobility service animals.

These types of service dogs are not legally required to:

Demonstrate specific obedience skills
Avoid inappropriate behaviour in public
Receive training from a certified or accredited program

This lack of uniform standards creates a double standard under the law:

Guide dogs must meet provincial legal training and behavioural benchmarks [4]
Other service animals are validated through self-declaration or a note from a healthcare professional, without any mandated performance criteria

As a result, public-facing staff, landlords, and institutions often struggle to assess whether a dog is truly a service animal, particularly when behaviour is inconsistent with trained expectations.

Case Law: The Debate Over Accreditation

Recent tribunal and court decisions illustrate this grey area:

Robinson-Cooke v. Ontario (2023): The Human Rights Tribunal ruled it was discriminatory to deny a benefit solely due to lack of training from an accredited organization. The Divisional Court upheld the decision. [6]
Leach v. Ontario: The Tribunal ruled against a claimant who failed to prove a clear connection between their animal and their disability. [9]

These cases confirm that functionality—not formal training—is the legal test in Ontario.

Shared Spaces and Competing Human Rights

Ontario's Human Rights Code requires service providers, landlords, employers, and institutions to accommodate people with disabilities, which includes allowing service animals in areas where pets may otherwise be prohibited. [8] However, this may conflict with the rights of others in shared spaces.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission provides a framework for resolving these “competing rights” claims.

Considerations include:

Whether each claim involves a Code-protected right
Whether the rights are truly in conflict
Whether one right can be accommodated without harming the other
Whether one right must be limited to avoid undue hardship

Educational Settings and School Board Responsibilities

In Ontario schools, service animal accommodation is governed by Policy/Program Memorandum 163 (PPM 163).

School boards must create policies to handle requests, balancing the needs of:

Students requiring a service animal
Others with allergies, trauma, or sensory sensitivities
Staff and classroom safety

Examples of conflicting needs include:

One student requires a seizure-alert dog
Another has a severe dog phobia
A third is overwhelmed by noise or movement due to ADHD

All students may be in one classroom for hours. Schools must find solutions such as adjusted seating, room layout changes, time-sharing, or alternate program delivery. Voluntary, accredited training programs could further help by ensuring predictable and safe service animal behaviour in educational settings.

Common Conflicts

Case-by-case assessments are needed when these situations arise:

Severe allergies: Use of HEPA filters, alternate work areas, or scheduling changes may help.
Trauma responses: Dogs may trigger fear in survivors of abuse or war; quiet rooms or staggered use may resolve this.
Phobias and fear: Diagnosed cynophobia may require accommodation under the Code.
Religious/cultural concerns: Adjusted seating or cleaning practices may be appropriate.
Behaviour issues: Some students or co-workers with neurodiverse conditions (e.g. ADHD, ASD) may be especially sensitive to movement or barking.
Multiple service dogs in one room: Rotation plans, spacing strategies, or quiet zones may be necessary.

Public Backlash and Credibility Gaps

Without a legal registry or uniform ID system, real service dog users report:

Being denied service
Facing harassment
Being asked for illegal proof

Meanwhile, online sellers offer fake “service animal” gear, fueling misuse and mistrust. [9]

Moving Toward Solutions

Some commentators and professional groups have argued for a voluntary service animal registry or certification system to mitigate misuse, ease verification, and restore public confidence.

The Canadian Association for Psychiatric Disability and Treatment (CAPDT) highlights that Canada lacks a national registry, while BC and Alberta offer voluntary options. [1]
The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association supports a national registry and basic standards. [2]
Several private companies offer ID cards and “certification” documents, but these are not legally recognized. [3]

Experts warn against mandatory registration due to:

Privacy risks
Barriers for low-income individuals
Misuse by landlords or businesses

Emphasis remains on public education, rights-based accommodation, and strong policy development.

Promoting Balance and Understanding

Service animals are vital tools of accessibility, but their presence in public and institutional spaces can raise complex legal and human rights issues. Ontario law seeks to protect both access and fairness. As public understanding evolves, clarity, trust, and cooperation are key.