The co-owner of the Talbot Arm Motel in Destruction Bay is taking the Yukon government to small claims court over regulations about service animals.

Suzanne Tremblay, also the manager of the motel, filed her litigation July 31. She outlined her case in her statement of claim.

On July 14, 2016, a U.S. citizen entered the hotel as a guest with a dog, saying it was a “service animal.”

It was never specified in the claim if service animal meant an emotional support animal or a guide dog.

Tremblay said she was waiting tables in the motel’s restaurant at the time and saw the client enter with the dog.

She told the client the dog could not enter the restaurant unless the animal was accompanied by a blind person. She said these were the rules as per the Yukon Public Health Act.

“I have worked in the service industry in the Yukon for 35 years and I have always known this,” Tremblay said in her claim.

Tremblay said she tried to accommodate the client, offering a table on a deck adjoining the restaurant, but the offer was refused.

She said she apologized and explained there was nothing she could do. The visitor left the hotel.

The incident resulted in a complaint to the Yukon Human Rights Commission on Nov. 30, 2016.

Tremblay said she told the commission that she had followed the Public Health Act. She said she was told that the guest’s human rights had been violated regardless of the act.

She said she was willing to accommodate clients in a similar situation moving forward, provided the rules were explained to her clearly and concisely.

“It has always been clear from all the health inspectors that dogs are not allowed in the restaurant unless accompanying a visually-impaired person requiring a seeing eye dog,” she said in her claim.

Tremblay said she contacted several health inspectors after the incident, and included copies of the emails she received. Environmental health officer Franklin Fru replied to her and sent the Public Health Act policy as written.

From those correspondences, she felt the regulations would prove she was right. She outlined that she went back to the commission with this information and claims she was referred to the territorial government.

This left Tremblay confused, as she felt there must be another act that holds supremacy over the Public Health Act.

“How are we as a business operating with the parameters of our Public Health Act licence supposed to know better than the lawmakers which act overrides others?” she asked in her claim.

Tremblay said the government has not contacted her to provide any clarity.

She said the government believes this situation has nothing to do with it, and referred her back to the commission. She added she was informed that no territorial act conflicts with another.

Tremblay claims she has had to spend $2,500 to get legal advice, and this situation has hurt the motel’s business.

Because of the human rights complaint against the Talbot Arm, the motel can no longer sponsor foreign workers as long as the complaint stands.

“The Yukon government should be the one liable for this, not us, who work under their legislation,” she said in her claim.

Tremblay feels she is being accused of committing a crime simply for following the law.

“I believe the government is being negligent, and as a result is creating undue hardship for us,” she said in her claim.

The government filed a response to the litigation on Aug. 16. In the response, legal counsel Karen Wenckebach denied all allegations levied against the government.

Wenckebach confirmed that the regulations of the Public Health Act do not apply to guide dogs.

She pointed to Fru’s email correspondence, saying Tremblay had misread the email.

Wenckebach stated that Fru did not say dogs could only be in a restaurant if accompanied by a blind person. She noted that is not in the regulation either.

She added the regulations do not prohibit service dogs from accompanying a non-blind person into a restaurant.

Wenckebach provided specific entries to the Public Health Act for clarity, highlighting sections 21 and 21.1.

Section 21 reads, “No person shall, (a) use any room where food is prepared, cooked, served or stored for sleeping purposes or (b) permit any live animal or live foul in any room in which food is prepared.”

Section 21.1 reads, “Subsection 21(b) does not apply in respect if use of dog guides that accompany persons who depend on such dogs for assistance and guidance because of a sight disability.”

Wenckebach also cited section 5.10 of the federal Food Retail and Food Service Code, which deals with the presence of animals in restaurants and public areas where food is served.

Under this section, animals would be permitted in the following circumstances:

• fish, shellfish and crustaceans in an aquarium;

• service animals like a patrol dog with a security officer or a blind person’s guide dog; and

• a pet visiting an institution like a nursing home as long as the visit does not coincide with any meals being served.

Wenckebach said Tremblay did not take any steps to mitigate any of the claimed damages.

She added that Tremblay has also failed to provide a link between the alleged damages and fault to the government.