Accommodation or Tactic? The Court’s Message in Parker v. King

Parker v. King a case that drew attention — and a bit of disbelief — the Ontario Superior Court recently addressed an unusual family court dispute involving whether a litigant could bring his albino ball python, named Rico, into courtroom proceedings as a “service animal.”

During a family law case management conference, the Respondent appeared in court accompanied by his albino ball python, asserting that the snake was a service animal necessary for his mental well-being. The Respondent produced documentation claiming the snake was accredited as a service animal. The Applicant objected due to a known phobia of snakes and brought a motion to prohibit the presence of the snake — both for her comfort and to ensure the orderly administration of justice.

What the Court Decided

After reviewing the evidence — and noting the lack of credible supporting documentation — the court concluded that:

• There was no reliable evidence that the snake qualified as a service animal under any applicable standard or legislation.

• The purported medical note was not issued by a professional registered with the appropriate regulatory body, and the “service animal registry” referenced in the materials did not exist.

• The Respondent did not file any materials in opposition to the motion.

On that basis, the court found that the claimant’s version of events was unchallenged and accepted that the snake’s presence did not meet the legal criteria for accommodation as a service animal.

Court Rationale & Key Takeaways

The judge acknowledged that while a wide range of animals can sometimes serve legitimate roles in supporting individuals with disabilities, credible, verifiable evidence is essential. In this case:

• The affidavit evidence did not demonstrate that the Respondent suffered from a disability requiring a service animal.

• Even if an accommodation request is genuine, when the animal’s presence interferes with court operations or affects the rights of others, it may be restricted.

• Because the Respondent failed to respond substantively to the motion and offer relevant evidence, the court was clear in its decision.

The court’s order prohibits the Respondent from bringing Rico — or any other purported service animal — into the courthouse unless and until a future order is made based on appropriate evidence.

While the court did not expressly label the Respondent’s conduct as strategic or tactical, the decision must be read within the broader context of a highly contentious family law proceeding.

Family law litigation is often emotionally charged, and courts are increasingly alive to behaviours that escalate conflict, distract from the substantive issues, or place additional strain on the opposing party. In this case, the introduction of an unconventional “service animal” — particularly where the Applicant had a known phobia — raised legitimate questions about whether the conduct was truly about accommodation, or whether it functioned as a pressure tactic within an already acrimonious divorce.

In contentious divorces, how a party conducts themselves can be just as important as the legal issues being argued. Courts expect restraint, good faith, and proportionality. Attempts to gain leverage through unconventional or unsupported claims — particularly those that affect the other party’s ability to participate meaningfully — risk backfiring and drawing judicial scrutiny.

Family court can feel overwhelming — especially when conflict runs high. At Willing Law, we help clients cut through the noise, focus on what matters, and move their case forward with clarity and confidence. If you’re navigating separation, divorce, or parenting disputes, we’re here to support you every step of the way.

Reach out to book a consultation and learn how we can help.