Posted on 05/17/2014 7:00:06 AM PDT by COBOL2Java
David Peavey was medically released from the military nine years ago after being diagnosed with PTSD. He served for 18 years, spending time in Somalia, among other places.
His service dog Norm, which he just got this week, helps him to complete daily tasks and live a more normal life.
K.J. Gandhi, Peavey's landlord, recently gave the veteran a 15-day eviction notice — but that's been put on hold while the province's Human Rights Commission looks into the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
.......love vets, am a vet, but this guy needs to move to where dogs like his are welcome. People have a right to not want to live with someone else’s dog!
He signed the lease. He needs to honor the lease.
And the landlord needs to obey the law. Reading the article, looks like Canada’s law is similar to that is the US regarding service dogs.
Well, that in itself is a good point. I hope the issue gets resolved satisfactorally.
The landlord isn’t necessarily a fool. He could be saving himself a lot of grief and money.
I am a landlord. I had a tenant with a dog. Usually I don’t allow them but it was a ‘hardship’ case. What a disaster. The dog damaged the door frames, the furniture, the hardwood floor. The urine and poo was so bad my cleaning person refused to clean it.
If you think the landlord should be forced to accept this man’s dog, that doesn’t seem like a very conservative position. Liberals like to force citizens to do things they don’t want to do.
No. In fact in #15 I said exactly the opposite. As a landlord you have to decide what size damage deposit protects you. That’s what it’s for (though every place I ever rented they thought the damage deposit was their by by bonus.)
We can't really criticize Ubama for not following the rule of law if we want to carve out exceptions ourselves.
You may have the prevailing point but I think any such law anywhere is intended to apply to seeing eye dogs and other such dogs not PTSD.
I don’t know about Canada, but PTSD is covered under the ADA for service animals in the US (did you know that miniature horses can also be service animals in the US?)
Really?
Then go serve a couple combat tours perched on a God-forsaken little firebase in the 'Ghan.
Then come back and you won't have to ask that question.
IMHO:
If you don’t have PTSD, you don’t know what you’re talking about and should STFU.
Not all wounds are visible.
God bless our troops.
I agree. The last thing this vet needs is more stress. Go somewhere else where you can be comfortable.
I have some apartments and we have a no dog policy. Some dogs probably wouldn't be a problem. However, there is always a few inconsiderate people that will have a dog that barks all night, or isn't well trained and threatens people or animals. such owners are usually lax a picking up after their dog walks or let him dig up the landscaping.
In order to protect against the inconsiderate few, everyone has to be without the companionship of a pet.
my comment was in DEFENSE of our soldiers with PTS = DROP THE D - it isn't a 'disorder' - it's an injury, stop hanging 'Disorder' around their necks.
And I know dame full well -
I liked Gaffer’s initial post, but you make an excellent point. To add to the dog-lover-vet-spouse-landlord.
Where is the consideration for the other tenants? Perhaps some of them moved there thinking “dog-free” means allergy-free, or even fear-free (yes, many people are fearful of dogs, I can only imagine a Mastiff). This is like advertising smoke-free hotels and apartments - only to find suddenly someone starts smoking in their rooms or down the hall. Worse when the owner makes the exception. If he wants to change his mind, he needs to warn the other tenants and give them time to opt out of their contracts or finish them.
The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the 1.
Maybe here it depends on the tenants - would they be OK with it?
If you retread it you will notice that I was vehemently agreeing with you and expounding a bit.
I think what you lay out is exactly why some places say they’re dog-free, except for service or seeing-eye dogs. Apparently that exception doesn’t apply at this apt complex. I’d probably have to give the owner the benefit of the doubt on this one. Sometimes if you make one exception, a dozen others follow.
Then it’s about time ADA (and Canadian equivalent) is re-examined. (Honestly I’d get rid of it altogether. I’m sick of all the freedom-hating rules.)
Some people’s “disability” is allergy to pets. If multiple people join the complex because it is pet-free, shouldn’t they be allowed to stay out their contracts without a pet there to set them off?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.