The case of Parker v. King may be remembered for the albino ball python, like this one, writes Bob Aaron, but it reminds us that compassion in justice must be balanced with common sense.
In one of the more unusual rulings to emerge from Ontario’s courts this year, Justice Calum MacLeod issued an order dealing with whether an albino ball python named Rico could qualify as a service animal in a judicial proceeding.
In August, Daniel King appeared at an informal family law case conference in Belleville accompanied by his snake named Rico.
King insisted that Rico was a service animal.
At the court hearing he presented documentation stating that he required the service animal for his mental well-being and that the snake was accredited in some fashion.
Michelle Lee Parker, the opposing party in the court case, strongly objected to the presence of Rico in the court room. Even though she told the judge that she has a phobia about snakes, the case conference proceeded with both parties and Rico present.
In Ontario, our courts have a legal duty to accommodate people with disabilities under both the Human Rights Code and The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The question the court had to grapple with in this case was whether Rico’s owner was entitled to an accommodation permitting him to bring the snake into a courtroom.
Albino ball pythons are a variant of the python snake known for their striking yellow and white colouring. They are between three- and five-feet long and exist on a diet of live or frozen rats or mice.
They are said to be popular pets, but I wouldn’t go anywhere near one.
Before the second court hearing, Lee applied to Justice Calum Macleod to prohibit Rico or any other snake from appearing in court.
She provided evidence suggesting that the “doctor” who wrote the note certifying the need for a service animal was not registered with any of the applicable Colleges in Ontario. As well, the “certificate” appeared to be from a non-existent national registry of service animals.
Lee suggested to the judge that the use of the snake as a service animal was a fraud and was simply a mechanism to intimidate her.
After hearing arguments last month, Justice Macleod wrote that he was satisfied on the evidence that Rico was not a service animal within the meaning of any applicable standard or legislation.
While the court recognized that various types of service animals may be required by individuals with physical or mental disabilities, there was no evidence that King suffered from a disability or that the only way to accommodate that disability was the use of a snake as a service animal.
As well, the judge wrote, “when the animal in question interferes with the administration of justice or negatively impacts other participants in the justice system, the use of the service animal in the courtroom may be prohibited.”
The judge issued an order banning King from bringing Rico or any other service animal into the courthouse without prior permission from a judge.
But beyond the immediate oddity of a python in a courtroom lies a serious legal and ethical question: Where do we draw the line between legitimate human rights accommodation and misuse of the process?
The case of Parker v. King may be remembered for its odd facts, but it delivers a vital reminder: compassion in justice must be balanced with common sense.
Accessibility and accommodation are essential pillars of fairness, but so too is the safety and psychological well-being of all participants in the legal process.
A courtroom, after all, must remain a place for truth — not theatrics.