Hiss-terical: Court Slithers Toward Limits on Questionable “Service” Animals

By Joel Berkovitz and Inderpreet Sandhu

In a recent Ontario Family Court ruling, Parker v. King, 2025 ONSC 6813, the applicant sought a court order that the respondent not be permitted to bring his albino ball python, called “Rico,” into the courtroom as a service animal.

The judge found that there was no credible evidence that the snake qualified as a legitimate service animal. The judge further found that the “supporting medical note” was not from a properly registered professional and that the purported service animal registry in which the snake was registered as a service animal was fictitious.

The applicant’s unchallenged evidence that the snake was being used as a tool of intimidation (particularly given her known phobia) was accepted, and the respondent’s failure to respond to the motion was a key factor in the outcome. While leaving open the possibility of future, properly supported accommodation requests, the court ordered that no snakes or other “service” animals may be brought into the courthouse by the respondent without prior judicial permission.

There are, however, some troubling issues here. Initially, the court permitted the snake to be in the courtroom, and the applicant was forced to bring a motion to address the issue. The decision also leaves room for the respondent to renew the request with proper evidence. This case highlights the tension between genuine accommodation requests and misuse of the process.

This decision has practical implications beyond family law, including condominium disputes, where boards and owners increasingly face claims for unconventional “service” or “emotional support” animals. The case underscores that accommodation requests must be supported by credible, verifiable medical evidence and that tribunals and courts may refuse accommodations where the animal’s presence interferes with safety, operations, or the rights of others.