(c) prevent an occupier of a unit who has a disability from keeping a relevant animal at the unit, or restrict the use of a relevant animal by the occupier if the relevant animal is trained to assist the occupier in respect of the disability; or (d) prevent a visitor to a unit who has a disability from using a relevant animal trained to assist the visitor in respect of the disability.
In its Glossary, the SA strata Act refers to an Assistance animal “as defined by the Equal Opportunity Act 1984.” That Act defines a difference between an Assistance Animal and a Therapeutic Animal. The former has to be registered with the Dog and Cat Board (I kid you not) but the latter can, indeed, be established by a doctor.
The thing is, the strata Act says nothing about “Therapeutic” animals … only “assistance” animals. So where does that leave you?
You could get all bush lawyer about this and reply to the (real) lawyer’s letter saying the bird is not an assistance animal as defined by the SA strata Act or Equal Opportunities Act, therefore the exclusions don’t apply.
Or you could take this opportunity to revise your by-laws to allow pets, provided they are not a nuisance to any other owners under any reasonable circumstances. And you could take the opportunity to define the criteria for assistance or therapeutic animals, including, perhaps, that the doctor signing the letter also has to state what the disability is and how the animal assists.
Doctors are great at signing “sick notes” for strata residents, not giving a damn about the effect on the rest of the community of their actions, so they should be held to account.
That said, the health benefits of pet ownership, especially for seniors living on their own, are well documented. Pets are also excellent for bringing communities together (yappy dogs, notwithstanding). Your bird-loving neighbour needs to be less of a dog in a manger when it comes to pets.
One other thing, I sense the people who train assistance animals are starting to get annoyed by strata residents who claim their ordinary pet is an assistance animal, as it undermines the credibility of the real ones.
This is what the Equal Opportunity Act says:
88—Assistance animals
Subject to this Act— (a) it is unlawful to impose a condition or requirement that would result in a person with a disability being separated from his or her assistance animal; and (b) a person who imposes such a condition or requirement is, in addition to civil liability that might be incurred under this Act, guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: $2 500.
88A—Therapeutic animals (1)
It is unlawful for a person— (a) to refuse an application for accommodation; or (b) to defer such an application or accord the applicant a late order of precedence on a list of applicants for that accommodation, on the ground that the applicant intends to keep a therapeutic animal at that accommodation.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply if the respondent establishes that in the circumstances of the case the refusal was reasonable.
(3) In this section— therapeutic animal means—
(a) an animal certified by a medical practitioner as being required to assist a person as a consequence of the person’s disability; or
(b) an animal of a class prescribed by regulation, but does not include an assistance animal, a dangerous dog within the meaning of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 or a dog of a prescribed breed within the meaning of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995.