I can only speak from a US perspective and with the usual disclaimers that this advice is worth what you paid for it. The US Fair Housing Act is administered by the Department of Justice and there is a hotline for reporting discrimination. If your friend were in the US, I would suggest she call that number, explain her situation as a person who is thinking of renting in the future. Ask as a direct question exactly what she can and cannot do and say to people with service dogs. She can say that her objective is not only to be in full compliance with the law, but to be positively anti-discrimination. The problem is that she does not want to kill herself in the process, and I would tell them that. That is not being unreasonable, but I cannot guarantee that she will not be told that she cannot rent her property unless she will accept service dogs. Personally, I would not be satisfied with that answer as I think she can, but it all depends on the knowledge and experience of the person taking the call at the other end.cottageguru wrote:Where does this leave my friend and her 'pet free' zone? Any suggestions?A dog guide user is also guaranteed the right to equal housing accommodations, and no special terms or conditions can be imposed because of the dog's presence.
There must be an equivalent phone inquiry service in Canada, through a Department of State, but I'm not getting anything on a search under "Fair Housing Canada", so the law there is obviously called something else.
Although the US law also has similar wording that a Landlord cannot impose special terms or conditions on anyone with disabilities, it does require the cost of any special adaptations a person may need to be borne by the person with the disability, not the landlord.
So, for example, if someone needs to widen a bathroom door for wheelchair access, or build a ramp to the front door, you must allow them to do it at their own expense. When they vacate the property, they must reinstate it to it's former condition, again at their own expense. Fair enough for a long term rental situation, but of course completely impractical for a short term vacation rental. Nevertheless, my reading of the law would require anyone with a guide dog to pay the cost of removing all trace of the dog after the rental. That could be very costly, and I would have thought the person with the dog would not want the liability for killing your friend while she was cleaning up after them. That's the real issue here. The requirements of the renter cannot be unreasonable, even if they are in a protected class. She might be able to get an exemption on those grounds.
There is another aspect that she might want to explore, a bit of a long shot. Again, check relevant laws in your area, but your friend may be able to restrict her property rentals to people with the same affliction as herself by forming a "life-threatened-by-dog-allergy-club". The club should not be formed as a workaround to avoid renting to people with service dogs, it should have a proper purpose, but if she wants to specialize in offering appropriate accommodation for other people with severe allergy problems, she might think about forming a club, then only club members would be eligible.
I believe that my earlier answer above goes a long way to handling it as a practical matter, (assuming Canadian law is substantively the same), but I do agree that your friend needs to know exactly and unequivocally where she stands. Whether that advice comes from an attorney or a number of other free sources doesn't really matter. They are not trying to keep the laws of discrimination secret, so free advice should not be hard to find! But it's not only what she says, it's also how she says it - and that's why she needs proper guidance.
Regarding penalties, a licensed professional such as an attorney or real estate broker would be in very serious trouble if they had a complaint filed against them, but as a lay person, your friend should not be overly worried at this point. The important thing is that she does not say the property is not available simply to avoid the issue, when actually it is. People are employed by the DoJ to send fake inquiries and that is exactly what they are looking for to make a case. See Operation Home Sweet Home: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/Octobe ... t_858.html
I know there is an old school of thought here that doesn't agree with that opinion, and believes that it's safer for an owner to just say no without giving a reason, but personally, I couldn't disagree more. Far better to express genuine concern about allergy sufferers in an honest and straight forward way, without refusing the rental per se - just explaining the difficulties - then let the person themselves make their own mind up as to whether or not they want to go ahead. Most people are very reasonable, I'm sure it's not going to be a problem for your friend.
Finally, if you do have another friend who does accept pets, then I would suggest setting something up so that she can exchange dog lovers with allergy sufferers, then everyone can find suitable accommodation for their needs, which is the end goal.
P.S:
Ravetildon,
I have just clicked your link. Nice try, but completely irrelevant. What you're reading there is only applicable to commercial premises. That would include a B&B, but would not be applicable to a single family home, which is regulated under housing law, not business law. Wrong document, sorry. What you're looking for is here: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/fairho ... ingact.htm