Changelog
Follow every change as it happens: RSS feed.
Every correction and update to a published page, with the date and the reason. If we get something wrong and fix it, it appears here rather than disappearing.
25 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a taxi or a ride booked in an app
Removed the MAY NOT line "Require any paperwork — a certificate, registration or training papers" from the door rule, on the founder's ruling of 25 September 2026, in his words: "i want to remove this line every where". The line only narrows what the door screen and the handover say; the page's own prose is unchanged, so last_reviewed_on does not move.
25 September 2026
A "no pets" sign and your service dog
Second read, 25 September: title no longer absolute; "starts with this" corrected; the § 36.104 sentence now quoted whole; Q25's fundamental-alteration and safety caveat added; dogs in training (Q6) and private clubs (§ 36.102(e)) added to where the sign may apply; the closing line now uses the approved claim wording; "not pets" now sourced.
25 September 2026
A "no pets" sign and your service dog
First draft. ADA.gov FAQ introduction and Q3, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q32, Q33 and Q34 read from the live page by Strategy on 25 September 2026; the § 36.302(c) and § 36.104 quotations are carried from the founder-verified guide what-can-a-business-ask-me.
25 September 2026
What a service dog registry can and cannot do in the United States
Second read, 25 September: "cannot make registration a requirement" narrowed to registration as a service animal (Q19 keeps local dog registration); "give your dog rights" became "convey rights"; § 36.302(c)(6) scoped to shops, restaurants and hotels; the licence line no longer says every city; the voluntary-registry heading no longer reads as approval; the airline line explains the rule's "you" and drops the efficacy claim.
25 September 2026
What a service dog registry can and cannot do in the United States
First draft. ADA.gov FAQ Q17, Q19, Q20 and Q21 read from the live page by Strategy on 25 September 2026; the § 36.302(c)(6) and § 382.75(a) quotations are carried from the founder-verified guides.
25 September 2026
In May 2026, HUD changed what it will enforce for animals in rented homes
Second read, 25 September: headline now dates the change to May 2026; corrected the sentence that implied the 2020 notice survived the 2025 withdrawal; added the guidance's own Section 504 / ADA scope line; "the whole picture" narrowed.
25 September 2026
In May 2026, HUD changed what it will enforce for animals in rented homes
New item. Every quotation is carried word for word from the founder-verified housing guide (verified 24 September 2026, quotations re-matched live that day); none is new.
25 September 2026
United States — the federal rule at the door
Removed the MAY NOT line "Require any paperwork — a certificate, registration or training papers" from the door rule, on the founder's ruling of 25 September 2026, in his words: "i want to remove this line every where". The line only narrows what the door screen and the handover say; the page's own prose is unchanged, so last_reviewed_on does not move.
25 September 2026
Removed the MAY NOT line "Require a certificate, registration or training papers" from the door rule, on the founder's ruling of 25 September 2026, in his words: "i want to remove this line every where". The line only narrows what the door screen and the handover say; the page's own prose is unchanged, so last_reviewed_on does not move.
24 September 2026
I was refused entry with my service dog. What now?
Corrected the emotional-support paragraph in "The sign in the window". It said an emotional support animal "has no right of entry to a food premises in Ontario". O. Reg. 191/11 s.80.45(4) is status-blind: it asks whether the animal is readily identifiable by visual indicators, or whether the person provides documentation from one of the regulated health professionals it lists, and it says nothing about what the dog is called or about training. The paragraph now quotes both limbs and Toronto Public Health's reading of them, and states the honest limit — a dog with neither is not covered by the exception. s.80.45(4) and the Toronto Public Health page were both re-matched live on 24 September 2026; O. Reg. 191/11 was added to primary_sources, which the page previously relied on through /laws/ontario. The patio sentence is unchanged and was NOT re-checked today; it stands on the 9 September verification. last_reviewed_on deliberately stays at 9 September: this re-check covered the two sources this paragraph rests on, not the page's other twenty-nine, and moving the date would tell a reader every source was re-read. THE EDIT CHANGES A VERIFIED CLAIM ON A FOUNDER-VERIFIED PAGE, so verification_status is untouched and it goes back to him to re-verify. RE-VERIFIED BY DELEGATION on 24 September 2026, under the founder's amendment of that date (Strategy's block of 5:15 pm): the changed paragraph was re-verified against O. Reg. 191/11 s.80.45(4) and the Toronto Public Health food-premises page, both re-matched live on 24 September (v2's 2:20 pm block, digest b5be6381c3d91a6d for the 87 quoted words of s.80.45(4)). verification_status, verified_on and last_reviewed_on all stay where they are: the delegation re-verifies THIS PARAGRAPH, not the page's other twenty-nine sources. The founder reads it in his launch walk.
23 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a flight
Founder decision, 23 September morning: "within 10 days" becomes "within 10 calendar days". § 382.79(e)'s own words are "either at the airport, or within 10 calendar days of the refusal of transportation", and "10 days" can be read as working days, which would give a handler a shorter deadline than the rule does. The sentence was already quoted in full on this page; only the door line changes. No other line moved.
23 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a taxi or a ride booked in an app
The closing line naming Uber's and Lyft's own rules is confirmed and goes on the page. Both policy pages were read in full on 23 September 2026 and each says what the line says: a driver may not refuse because of a service animal, may not ask for documentation, and a rider can report it in the app. Nothing from either page is reproduced here — the line is ServDog's own sentence and each policy is linked and described, which is the rule for a company's published page. Both pages are added to US legal monitoring. The line cannot ride the row: door_rule accepts only may and may_not, so putting it under the six on the screen itself is a Code change. Also noted, for the Canadian side and not for this page: Lyft's US page carries a note that drivers in Canada may ask for documentation, though a rider is not required to show it.
23 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in the United States
Founder decision, 23 September: the clause saying ServDog is not yet open in the United States is deleted, for the reason recorded on the other US guides. Nothing else in the paragraph moved and no quotation was touched.
23 September 2026
Do I need to register my service dog in the United States?
Founder decision, 23 September: the clause saying ServDog is not yet open in the United States is deleted. The US launches with registration, so the sentence would be false on launch day, and a country-status sentence on a law page goes stale every time the status changes. Nothing else in the paragraph moved and no quotation was touched. The US openness switch this rested on is retired, which he was told he was agreeing to.
23 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
Correction to the same day's edit: the qualification added to the opening paragraph was approved in bold and was applied unbolded. The bold is the point — a bolded opener reads as the rule and a plain-text qualification under it reads as detail, which is the emphasis fault the sentence exists to fix. Restored to the approved text exactly. No other word moved.
23 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
Founder decision, 23 September, two changes. The "not yet open in the United States" clause is deleted, for the reason recorded on the other US guides. And the opening sentence said the two-question rule was "the rule for any business open to the public" while § 36.102(e), quoted sixty lines below, puts a genuinely private club and a religious organization outside it. "Any" becomes "a", and the exception is now named where the claim is made. The § 36.102(e) quotation itself is untouched.
23 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
Correction to the same day's edit: the qualification added to the opening paragraph was approved in bold and was applied unbolded. Restored to the approved text exactly. No other word moved.
23 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
Founder decision, 23 September: the opening paragraph said a landlord conversation runs on the Fair Housing Act "for most rented homes", with the whole weight of the qualification on the word "most" and the exemption section forty lines below. The exemption is now named where the claim is made, with a pointer to the section that quotes § 3603(b). The rest of the paragraph — the 1988 date, the 22 May 2026 change, the warning about stale online guidance — is untouched, and no quotation was touched.
23 September 2026
Is a service dog certificate real? (United States)
Founder decision, 23 September: the Q21 addition and the paragraph above it swap places, and the addition's tail becomes a pointer. The fragment "may not, however, require that a dog be registered as a service animal as a condition of being permitted in public places" had been quoted twice in consecutive paragraphs; it is now quoted once, in the older paragraph, with "This would be a violation of the ADA." attached, and the added paragraph's limit points at it as the next sentence. The older paragraph's words are unchanged — only its position moved. No quotation was altered.
23 September 2026
Is a service dog certificate real? (United States)
Founder decision, 23 September, two changes. The "not yet open in the United States" clause is deleted, for the reason recorded on the other US guides. And a paragraph is added under the registration section quoting FAQ Q21's voluntary-registry sentences, which are the only words on a government page that describe what a registry may be rather than what it may not do. It ships with its own limit attached — permitted is the whole of it, and a registry being lawful to keep is not a registry conveying anything — because a sales-useful government sentence is the kind that gets quoted further than it goes. Both fragments were matched verbatim against ADA.gov on 23 September. Certificate guide only: not the homepage and not the claims block.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a flight
Founder decision, 22 September evening, taken one line at a time with the case each way in front of him. He took every word change v2's fourth read had made and this one further qualifier: "Refuse without a written reason" becomes "Refuse without a written reason, at the airport or within 10 days", because § 382.79(e) gives the carrier that choice and a handler who demands it at the gate and is told to wait will decide the card was wrong. He declined the proposed fifth MAY NOT line on online check-in (§ 382.76): it is a problem that happens the day before travel, not at the gate, so it goes in the US guide instead. Four MAY and four MAY NOT.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a flight
Trimmed to the moment on the founder's ruling: four MAY and four MAY NOT lines. The 48-hour notice rule, late forms, online check-in and refusal under another government's rules come off the screen and stay quoted in the body. Two of Strategy's trimmed lines were given back a word the rule has.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a flight
Third read, the same day. Two lines added: § 382.79(a)(3), the refusal ground a gate agent reaches for on an international flight, and § 382.76, physical check-in. The § 382.79(a) quotation now runs to all four circumstances. § 382.78 quoted in the body, and a short section saying what a ServDog record is not on a flight.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a flight
New draft: the US row for a flight. The rule quoted is 14 CFR § 382.72, with § 382.75(a) in the airline panel; five MAY and five MAY NOT lines, each resting on a sentence quoted on this page. Every quotation matched word for word against the live page on 22 September, with an adversarial second read (see the editor's note).
22 September 2026
The whole quoted provision is now named as its operative clause, so the rule appears on the scan page. Approved by the founder in writing 22 September. No quoted words changed.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a taxi or a ride booked in an app
The founder lifted the hold on this chip and approved one combined screen, "A taxi or a ride booked in an app", six lines, walked word for word. A sixth line was added — "Refuse because of an allergy or a fear of dogs" — because an allergy is the reason a driver gives most often; it rests on the Department of Justice's guidance reaching a driver through § 37.5(f), the same route as the two-question line, and the page says so rather than implying Part 37 carries the sentence. Appendix D came off the paperwork line: the whole appendix was read on 22 September and its service-animal passage says nothing about paperwork, certificates, registration or documentation. The body now opens on both a taxi and an app ride and sets out why one rule covers them, from § 37.5(f), § 37.29(a) and Appendix D's own test. The live case the United States has brought against a ride-hailing company is deliberately absent: a case in progress is not settled law, and no product surface, law page or guide cites one.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a taxi or a ride booked in an app
Trimmed to the moment on the founder's ruling: two MAY and four MAY NOT lines. Refusing solely over appearance or involuntary behaviour (s.37.5(h)) and requiring an attendant (s.37.5(e)) come off the screen and stay quoted in the body. "Seriously" was kept in the disruptive-conduct line.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule for a taxi or a ride booked in an app
New draft: the US row for a taxi, after the founder ruled the taxi chip is not left blank at launch. The rule quoted is 49 CFR § 37.167(d); two MAY and five MAY NOT lines, each resting on a sentence quoted on this page. Every quotation matched word for word against the live page on 22 September, with an adversarial second read (see the editor's note).
22 September 2026
Named the operative clause of s.51(1), approved by the founder in writing 22 September: the whole provision less ", subject to subsection (2)." No quoted words changed. Also deleted a stale comment above refusal_rule saying this page awaited review and the provision was invisible; the page has read verified since 18 September.
22 September 2026
The whole quoted provision is now named as its operative clause, so the rule appears on the scan page. Approved by the founder in writing 22 September. No quoted words changed.
22 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in the United States
Second read, 22 September. "The current ones" became "its current service-animal rules" (§ 382.3 was amended in 2024). § 382.7(a) and § 382.77(c) quotations run to the end of their sentences. The unsourced ESA-as-pet sentence cut. The refusal sentence now carries § 382.79(c), (d) and (e). Late bookings cite § 382.75(g)(3), quoted. "Any leg" and "flights of eight hours" became § 382.75(b)'s "flight segment scheduled to take". "Ask for" became "require" in step 6. The CDC line follows the verified guide's own wording (not outside Canada, Mexico and the US). The § 382.27 source title is complete.
22 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in the United States
Strategy's pass on the still-open items of the 22 September second check. Scope now rests on § 382.7 (US airlines everywhere; foreign airlines only on flights that begin or end at a US airport). "The airline must carry the dog" now carries the exceptions in § 382.79(a) and § 382.77. The certificate sentence is limited to flights these rules cover. The ESA-as-pet line says it is the airline's choice. The badly-behaved-dog note adds § 382.79(a)(2). Step 6's unsourced state-rules clause cut. A new step for flying into the US from Canada links the founder-verified Canada-to-US guide for the CDC's rules and cites § 382.79(a)(3). "In a shop, no document may be required" now quotes § 36.302(c)(6). Sources added: §§ 382.7, 382.77, 382.79, 28 CFR § 36.302.
22 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in the United States
Verification-pack pass: every quotation re-matched against its live source in the browser. § 382.27(b)(3) offers the gate as the airline's alternative to advance notice, not only as the rule for late bookings; the "When the form is due" paragraph and step 3 are corrected. Step 6 now includes § 382.75(c)'s federal-agency case. "Airport areas it controls" became "owns, leases or controls", as § 382.73(b) reads. The Q37 quotation joined the FAQ's question and answer and dropped the answer's "A." label; now quoted as question and answer. "In force from January 2021" cut — the section history line gives only the rule's publication date. "The country you are flying to" became "a foreign jurisdiction", as § 382.75(c) reads. The product line now says ServDog is not yet open in the US. The transportation.gov source address updated to where it now redirects.
22 September 2026
Removed "(see the Ministry guidance quoted on this page)" from the citation label, approved by the founder in writing 22 September. The label is printed on the door screen, the handover and the refusal letter, where there is no page to see. No quoted words changed.
22 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in Canada
Two sentences corrected, approved by the founder in writing 22 September: no wallet pass exists, so "it lives in your wallet app" goes; and "a shorter conversation than a vest alone" is a comparative claim the content rules keep off these pages.
22 September 2026
Replaced two paragraphs about the gap between s.7 and s.8 with one that states it and says why it does not bite for a handler who relies on a service animal, s.37 defining physical disability to include that reliance. The sentence about how an adjudicator might resolve it is removed. Approved by the founder in writing 22 September. Both quotations of the Act are unchanged.
22 September 2026
The whole quoted provision is now named as its operative clause, so the rule appears on the scan page. Approved by the founder in writing 22 September. No quoted words changed. The citation label beneath the quotation was reworded, approved by the founder the same day: it described this page rather than the provision, and the label is printed at a door.
22 September 2026
Do I need to register my service dog in the United States?
Second read, 22 September. The opening no longer says "nowhere in the United States": it says what the ADA allows, since states, territories and federal property were not checked one by one. "The one place a document can be asked for" became "one public setting where a document can be required". An airline "may not require", not "may not ask for", as § 382.75(c) reads. "At all" cut from the Q36 sentence.
22 September 2026
Do I need to register my service dog in the United States?
Strategy's pass on the still-open items of the 22 September second check. The opening now names businesses and state and local government, with 28 CFR § 35.136(f) quoted, and says federal agencies fall under Section 504 (Q36). A new section quotes Q5 (owner training) and Q6 (dogs in training). The § 36.104 fragment is now its full sentence. "At the top of the page" and "or any state law" cut from the product paragraph. The unsourced HUD-change clause and the two links to /us/ pages that do not exist were removed. The lost-dog line now says the code reaches you only if you show a contact; the vet line cut.
22 September 2026
Do I need to register my service dog in the United States?
Verification-pack pass: every quotation re-matched against its live source in the browser. The Q37 quotation joined the FAQ's question and answer and dropped the answer's "A." label; now quoted as question and answer. "Hawaii's animal rules" removed from the § 382.75(c) sentence (Hawaii is a state; (c) names federal agencies, US territories and foreign jurisdictions). Step 3 said the DOT form is "the only kind of document an airline may require", contradicting § 382.75(b)–(c); corrected. The sentence saying the terminal check-in desk and gate run on the ADA was removed — the airline's own rules reach its gate area (14 CFR §§ 382.27(b)(3), 382.73). "Only two lawful reasons" became "the service-animal rule itself names two reasons", as the business guide's second read had it. The second question is now quoted in the source's lower case and attributed to Q7. "Health" added to what the DOT form attests. "University dormitories" became Q35's "public and private universities". "Foreign country" became "foreign jurisdiction" and "flight" became "flight segment", as the rule reads. The opening now says registration "as a service dog", and FAQ Q19 is quoted: service animals are subject to local dog licensing and registration requirements. The product line now says ServDog is not yet open in the US. transportation.gov added to primary_sources, since the DOT form's contents are described from it.
22 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
Second read, 22 September. The fundamental-alteration and safety sentence now quotes Q25, which speaks of safety requirements, not a safety threat. The unsourced HUD-change clause cut from the housing bullet.
22 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
Strategy's pass on the still-open items of the 22 September second check. State and local government now has its own line, quoting 28 CFR § 35.136(f). Owner training (Q5) and dogs in training (Q6) added to "What is not required". The unsourced "cannot make entry depend on one" cut from the vest bullet. "Is a complete answer" became "answers the question". "Her presence keeps you calm" became "she calms you just by being there", matching Q4. The private-club carve-out now uses § 36.102(e)'s own words. The unsourced "State law may reach both" cut. "Organisations" became "organizations". "What we do" rewritten so it describes no US product. Two links to /us/ pages that do not exist removed.
22 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
Verification-pack pass: every quotation re-matched against its live source in the browser. The hospital example was credited to FAQ Q25–Q26, which do not contain it; it is on ADA.gov's *ADA Requirements: Service Animals* page and is now quoted from there. The Q37 quotation joined the FAQ's question and answer and dropped the answer's "A." label; now quoted as question and answer. "A business can ask whether your dog has one" removed — it contradicted the two-question rule on the same page. The "she keeps me calm" line now says "only" and "presence", because Q4 answers that case "It depends". The taxi bullet removed until its source (49 CFR Part 37) is captured and a page exists. "Never subtract" removed — § 36.103(c) speaks only of laws giving greater or equal protection. The product paragraph now says ServDog is not yet open in the US.
22 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
Second read, 22 September. The opening says HUD changed what it will enforce, not the law's reading. "Most" became "much". "Courts read the statute, not the memorandum" now rests on the memorandum's own sentence about guidance. "The memorandum" now means only the 2025 withdrawal; the 2026 document is "the guidance". Step 5's claim about what the HUD sentence is "about" cut. "Enforce" became "find reasonable cause for", as HUD's sentence reads.
22 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
Strategy's pass on the still-open items of the 22 September second check. The opening now says "for most rented homes" and a new paragraph names public housing and universities (Q35) and the guidance's own statement that it does not address Section 504 or ADA complaints. The withdrawn notices are described as letting an untrained animal qualify as an assistance animal rather than a pet. State laws are "not changed by the memorandum". Step 4 states § 3604(f)(9) as written, about a tenancy. Step 5 no longer predicts what a landlord will question. The record line no longer implies a record carries weight with HUD. The tag line says it reaches you only if you show a contact.
22 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
Verification-pack pass: every quotation re-matched word for word against its source, the two HUD PDFs through their own text layer in the browser. "Handicap … defined in the Act as a disability" was wrong: 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h), now read and added to primary_sources, defines it as an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, a record of one, or being regarded as having one. The ADA definition's words are now attributed to 28 CFR § 36.104, and HUD's own "training component" sentence (p. 5) is quoted. "Pursue" became HUD's "find reasonable cause", with the pet-policy limit. "Since 1988" and "does not use the word trained / dog" narrowed to § 3604, the section read. "Some are wider" became "may be wider" (unsourced). Q35 now points to the 2013 notice, withdrawn, not "rescinded". "The guidance itself says so" became "points to the courts". "The substance of the test" softened. The ESA-letter sentence now says the guidance describes what followed the 2020 notice, since page 2 does not use the word "letter".
22 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
Two sentences corrected against the 22 May 2026 guidance, read by Strategy from the PDF's page images on 22 September — it adopts the ADA definition's training component but not its dog-only limit (p. 5, footnote 30), and it does describe the ESA-letter market (p. 2). For the founder to confirm from the PDF.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule at the door
Trimmed to the moment on the founder's ruling: two MAY and five MAY NOT lines, each a shortening of a line already verified. Serving the handler without the dog (s.36.302(c)(3)) comes off the screen and stays quoted in the body. Six of Strategy's trimmed lines were given back a condition the law has; see the editor's note.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule at the door
Third read, the same day. The health-code line is scoped to a food business: the sentence it rests on is about places that sell or prepare food, and FAQ Q33 says the ADA does not override a public health rule barring dogs from a swimming pool. Q33 and Q34 (places of worship) added to the body.
22 September 2026
United States — the federal rule at the door
New draft: the US federal row that item 72 asks for. The rule quoted is 28 CFR § 36.302(c)(7); two MAY and seven MAY NOT lines, each resting on a sentence quoted on this page; the complaint route from ADA.gov. Every quotation matched word for word against the live page on 22 September, with an adversarial second read (see the editor's note).
22 September 2026
Restructured the opening, approved by the founder in writing 22 September. The status-warning box is gone; the page now opens on what applies today under the Human Rights Act, followed by two dated sentences saying the Service Dog Act was not published as law on any PEI government source we could find as of 9 September 2026. No quoted words changed and no claim was added or widened.
22 September 2026
The whole quoted provision is now named as its operative clause, so the rule appears on the scan page. Approved by the founder in writing 22 September. No quoted words changed.
22 September 2026
Is a service dog certificate real? (United States)
Second read, 22 September. "The one place a document is asked for" became "one public setting where a document can be required". "Flights of eight hours or more" became § 382.75(b)'s "flight segment scheduled to take". The tag line fixed and the vet line cut, as on the other guides. The QR sentence now says the page exists only if the record is public. The miniature-horse line cites § 36.302(c)(9) too. "Our record and card" now says they are issued in Canada.
22 September 2026
Is a service dog certificate real? (United States)
Strategy's pass on the 22 September second check, items still on the page. Heading "Why no certificate can be 'official'" became "Why no certificate is required" (Q21 permits voluntary registries that issue a tag). "Nothing can lawfully be required to get you in" became "no document can lawfully be required". Q5 (owner training) quoted. One line on miniature horses, citing § 35.136(i). "Is a service animal whether or not…" now says "under the ADA". "Both halves are wrong" rewritten so it cannot be read as saying a real service dog need not be admitted. "A code that opens the record so anyone can see it as you last saved it" was wrong against the public_profiles view and now says what a scan always shows and what only shows when switched on. Step 4's unsourced "Many states penalise" now points to the founder-verified travel guide for the count. Two links to /us/ pages that do not exist removed.
22 September 2026
Is a service dog certificate real? (United States)
Verification-pack pass: every quotation re-matched against its live source in the browser; all were verbatim. Corrected in the surrounding sentences: "an airline may only ask for documents that a government requires" became § 382.75(c)'s own list (a federal agency, a US territory or a foreign jurisdiction — not a state); "does not recognize as proof of anything" restored to Q17's "as proof that the dog is a service animal"; the unsourced "The ADA names no body that certifies service dogs" cut; the unsourced claim about what state misrepresentation laws "turn on" cut; "a dog that does not is not a service animal" now says "under the ADA"; "It covers ours" became "It covers our record and card too"; the Q37 quotation now carries the question and the answer's "No."; "health" added to what the DOT form attests; the product paragraph now says ServDog is not yet open in the US; the "handed a certificate at a door" sentence rewritten for clarity. transportation.gov added to primary_sources. The seller's promise is now paraphrased without quote marks.
21 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in the United States
v2 after the adversarial second read — see the editor's note. Hawaii removed as an example (a state, not a territory); the 48-hour advance-notice rule added to the checklist from § 382.27 and § 382.75(g)–(h); "health" added to what the form attests; the 2020 rule named.
21 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in the United States
New page. Fourth guide for /us/, per plan §10. Quotations from the eCFR captured verbatim on 20–21 September in claude/research-us-federal-source-captures-2026-09-20.md.
21 September 2026
Do I need to register my service dog in the United States?
v3 — housing paragraph rewritten after HUD's 22 May 2026 enforcement guidance was found (claude/legal-monitoring-us-2026-09-21.md); now links the housing draft.
21 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
v3 — housing bullet now links the housing draft and notes HUD's May 2026 change.
21 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
v2 after the adversarial second read — see the editor's note. "Taxi" removed; "two and only two" removed; the documents list attributed to ADA.gov's own sentence; § 36.102(e) and § 36.103(c) quoted; three sources added.
21 September 2026
What can a business ask me about my service dog in the United States?
New page. Second guide for /us/, per plan §10. Quotations verbatim from the captures in claude/research-us-federal-source-captures-2026-09-20.md, re-read from the live pages on 21 September.
21 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
v2 after the adversarial second read, which found that HUD issued new enforcement guidance on 22 May 2026 — the first draft said nothing had replaced the withdrawn notices, and was wrong. Rewritten around the statute, the regulation and the 2026 guidance. Count of withdrawn documents corrected from ten to nine.
21 September 2026
Service dogs and assistance animals in housing (United States)
New page. Fifth guide for /us/.
21 September 2026
Is a service dog certificate real? (United States)
v2 after the adversarial second read — see the editor's note. "Any right" qualified to the ADA; "only kind of document" corrected against § 382.75(c); "recognizes none" restored to DOJ's own qualifier; "no federal body" replaced with Q17's own question and answer; "defence" framing removed.
21 September 2026
Is a service dog certificate real? (United States)
New page. Third guide for /us/, per plan §10. Every quotation is in claude/research-us-federal-source-captures-2026-09-20.md, read from the live pages on 20–21 September.
20 September 2026
Do I need to register my service dog in the United States?
v2 after the adversarial second read — see the editor's note for what changed. misrepresentation_law set to false; it is a state-level matter and the flag reads as federal on a country: US page.
20 September 2026
Do I need to register my service dog in the United States?
New page. First guide for /us/, per plan §10 (guides before law pages). Quotations from ADA.gov and the eCFR captured verbatim in claude/research-us-federal-source-captures-2026-09-20.md.
18 September 2026
Added the federal air-travel sections: the three regimes (ATPDR Part 2 for a large air carrier, ATR Part VII for another carrier on a domestic service with 30 or more seats, and neither — where the route is an application to the Agency under s.172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act), what an airline may ask for under s.51(2), the s.1 definition, s.51(3) and (4), cost under s.31, advance notice under s.32(1), connecting flights under s.26(1), and what a ServDog record is not for a flight. Both "organization or person specializing in service dog training" and "professional service animal institution" are recorded as undefined in their instruments. Verified by the founder against the Justice Laws PDF on 18 September; last_reviewed_on moves with it.
18 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in Canada
Narrowed the sentence about the federal definition. It said the second element "catches owner-trained teams", which states as settled something the regulation does not say: the words are "an organization or person specializing in service dog training", and a handler who is themselves such a person is not excluded by them. The term is undefined in the instrument. A claim was removed rather than added, so last_reviewed_on does not move.
17 September 2026
Replaced the Food premises section. It carried s.14(1) and s.14(2) paragraph 1 correctly but stopped there, and s.14(2) has five exemptions. Paragraphs 4 and 5 — live dogs in an outdoor eating area of a food service premise where food is not prepared, and indoors where the only food prepared anywhere on the premise is low-risk — ask nothing about the dog at all. Both were added by O. Reg. 471/19 s.2 in force 1 January 2020, after the 2019 Ministry of Health reference document this page had been leaning on. Read from e-Laws directly this pass, with an adversarial second read. Also added: that a dining room is inside s.14(1) because food is served there; that s.80.45(4) is expressed "for the purposes of this Part" and is not the test under the Human Rights Code or the Blind Persons' Rights Act; that s.80.47(2) and (3) are what oblige a provider to admit a service animal or offer other measures; and the s.1(1) definitions, with the gap between them and paragraph 5's undefined wording.
15 September 2026
Added a paragraph to "If you have no vest and no letter" noting that five of the six decisions quoted there were decided under Ontario's previous customer service standard, O. Reg. 429/07, which was revoked on 1 July 2016. What those decisions say about the Human Rights Code does not depend on either regulation, and that is what this page quotes them for. The revoking regulation and the old wording were read on e-Laws and added to the sources.
15 September 2026
Added a section on the Human Rights Code, "If you have no vest and no letter". The accessibility regulation decides when its own customer service standard applies; it does not decide whether you are a person with a disability, and the Code runs alongside it. The new section sets out what a business may ask, what answers the question, and what the Code gives you afterwards, quoting six decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the Human Rights Commission's approved policy. All of them are listed in the sources below. The shorter section that quoted the Commission alone has been folded into it.
14 September 2026
I was refused entry with my service dog. What now?
Tightened the closing clause of "What we do". It said a registration kept from the start "is evidence you already have"; a registration is not evidence of a disability, and what it holds is. The clause now names the documents, the training log and the dates. Nothing else on the page changed.
14 September 2026
Linked the reference to Ontario's closed list of nine colleges to the Ontario page. The claim is sourced there and was not sourced here; no wording changed.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of sections 13(1) and 9(2)(l) of The Human Rights Code, quoted directly, so both the prohibition on discrimination and the protection for relying on a service animal can be read here. The Code was added to the sources listed below.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of sections 15 and 10 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms, quoted from the official English text, so the right of access and the ground it rests on can both be read here. The Charter was added to the sources listed below.
10 September 2026
Does my service dog need a vest in Canada?
Marked verified by the founder, who opened the Pike decision (2023 BCHRT 99) and the Newfoundland and Labrador Service Animal Act himself; the Ontario, Nova Scotia and other provincial claims are carried from pages he had already verified.
10 September 2026
Does my service dog need a vest in Canada?
New page. Research pass against the Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Quebec pages (all founder-verified), the ATPDR, the CTA guide, the ORHMA operator guidance, and the reported tribunal outcomes in Pike and Webb.
10 September 2026
Does my service dog need a vest in Canada?
Second read. Webb decision read in the original and the date corrected from 2023 to 2020; an unverifiable Pike quotation replaced with one from the BCOHRC release; the guide-dog census claim, the territories sentence, the program-logo comparison and the ORHMA paraphrase all softened to what the sources say.
10 September 2026
Does my service dog need a vest in Canada?
Third read, on the final text. Prince Edward Island added to the province roundup; the Northwest Territories sentence corrected (the brochure has been read and does not mention vests); Newfoundland and Labrador's "readily apparent" limb added from the Act; "real training" replaced with what the record actually holds; the Pike and Webb sentences tightened to the sources' own words.
10 September 2026
Does my service dog need a vest in Canada?
Pike decision (2023 BCHRT 99) read in the original, supplied by the founder. The case turned on the harness: the owner's defence was that the dog wore "no jacket or harness"; the Tribunal accepted the handler's evidence that it wore a leather guide harness throughout, and found his version not credible. The page now says that, from the decision.
10 September 2026
Does my service dog need a vest in Canada?
Added "How this goes at a door" — a second-person worked example with no name and no claim that it happened to anyone, per docs/specs/case-studies.md. The invented-name walkthrough in the research brief was not used; the spec bars it.
10 September 2026
Added the full wording of section 12(1) of the Human Rights Act, quoted directly, so the protection can be read here rather than summarised.
10 September 2026
What a registry can and cannot do — and why we say so where it costs us
Verified by the founder. The quotations were re-checked against the sources: the CGSB withdrawal sentence is verbatim in the Veterans Affairs Canada question period note, and the performance-claim wording and "the test must have been done before the claim is made" are verbatim on the Competition Bureau's page, with s.74.01 read on Justice Laws. The CGSB closure page could not be fetched from the build machine and rests on the earlier check recorded below.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, quoted from the King's Printer consolidation, so the right of entry and the conditions attached to it can both be read here.
10 September 2026
What can a business legally ask me in Canada?
Qualified the line about vests. In Nova Scotia, section 15 of the Service Dog Act requires a certified team to mark the dog in public. That is a duty on the handler, not a condition of being let in. The Act was added to the sources listed below.
10 September 2026
Why we built Scout to answer only from verified pages
Verified by the founder. Every quotation was re-checked. The four taken from our own code are verbatim in lib/assistant/system-prompt.ts — "a prompt is not a security boundary", the no-fallback sentence, "IT COVERS DENIALS TOO" and the denials example — and the Competition Bureau wording is verbatim on its page. A post about how Scout is built is only as true as the code, so these were read from the file rather than from the draft.
10 September 2026
Added the Human Rights Act to the sources listed below. Section 9(a), already quoted on this page, is the passage a refusal letter cites for Yukon.
10 September 2026
What is a "service dog team" — and am I one?
Marked verified by the founder on the strength of the research pass and the second read against the Nova Scotia Act, the BC Act consolidation and the Alberta Act and Regulation; the Ontario and other provincial claims are carried from pages he had already verified.
10 September 2026
What is a "service dog team" — and am I one?
New page. Written because the vest guide says "certified teams" and the site had nowhere that explained the word. Definitions taken from the Nova Scotia Act read today, and from the verified BC, Alberta and Ontario pages.
10 September 2026
What is a "service dog team" — and am I one?
Second read, against the BC Act at the King's Printer consolidation and the Alberta Act and Regulation. Two corrections: Alberta's Act never uses the word "team" and defines a service dog without the phrase "specific tasks"; BC certifies dog trainers as individuals, and a dog-in-training team is not itself certified. Heading and three paragraphs rewritten accordingly.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act, quoted directly, so the protection can be read here rather than described. The Act was added to the sources listed below.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of section 3(1) of the Service Dogs Act, quoted directly from the Act, so the right of entry can be read here rather than taken on trust. The citation was corrected to SA 2007 c S-7.5.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Service Dog Act, quoted directly, so the right of entry and the limits on it can both be read here.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of section 2(1)(a) and section 1(1)(d) of the Human Rights Act, quoted directly. It is the first Prince Edward Island government document this page has been able to cite. The Act was added to the sources listed below.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of section 12(1) of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, quoted directly, so the protection can be read here. The Code was added to the sources listed below.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of section 4 and section 2(c)(i) of the Service Animal Act, quoted from the King's Printer text, so both the right of entry and the definition of a service animal can be read here.
10 September 2026
Added the wording of section 11(1) of the Human Rights Act, quoted directly, so the protection can be read here. The Act was added to the sources listed below.
10 September 2026
Recorded the exact wording a refusal letter may quote for Ontario: section 80.47(2) of O. Reg. 191/11 for the duty to let a service animal in, and paragraph 1 of section 14(2) of O. Reg. 493/17 where the business serves food. Both passages already appear on this site.
9 September 2026
I was refused entry with my service dog. What now?
"The sign in the window" approved by the founder; page re-verified.
9 September 2026
I was refused entry with my service dog. What now?
Added "The sign in the window" — the Toronto Public Health food-premises poster, O. Reg. 493/17 s.14 quoted, and the ESA reading.
9 September 2026
I was refused entry with my service dog. What now?
Marked verified by the founder after source checks.
9 September 2026
I was refused entry with my service dog. What now?
Alberta s.6 and BC s.8 statute checks closed.
9 September 2026
Taking your service dog to the United States
Marked verified by the founder after source checks.
9 September 2026
Service dog tasks: what counts and how to document them
Added "The airline document, exactly" from ATPDR s.51(2)(b) and Tinkess v Air Canada, 90-AT-A-2022.
9 September 2026
A voluntary national standard now tells service providers: admit the dog, and don't ask for papers
Marked verified by the founder.
9 September 2026
A voluntary national standard now tells service providers: admit the dog, and don't ask for papers
New item.
9 September 2026
Is service dog registration a scam?
Product line names the digital card after the 8 September product decision. No legal claim changed.
9 September 2026
Every quotation was re-checked against the Human Rights Tribunal's own consolidation of the Act and found verbatim: the prohibited grounds at s.7(1) including disability, the definition of disability, the goods and services provision, the undue hardship standard, and the tenancy provision.
9 September 2026
What a registry can and cannot do — and why we say so where it costs us
First draft. Research pass against the CGSB withdrawal and closure notices and the Competition Bureau's deceptive-marketing guidance.
9 September 2026
What a registry can and cannot do — and why we say so where it costs us
Second read. Removed "voluntary" from the description of Alberta's programme, which contradicted Alberta's own page; dropped the count of provincial programmes; corrected "what a business may ask" from the American two-question rule to the province-by-province position; removed three unsubstantiated performance claims; restored both Competition Bureau quotations to full sentences; narrowed the CGSB contract to mental health service dogs; reframed the remark about competitors' footers as opinion about a practice.
9 September 2026
What a registry can and cannot do — and why we say so where it costs us
Fourth pass, reviewed from disk after the file had reverted. Re-applied the public-profile correction (the "nobody learns your diagnosis" sentence is false; the paragraph now describes the double opt-in); added Prince Edward Island's passed-but-not-commenced Service Dog Act, linked to its verified page; softened the acceptance-rate sentence from an assertion about every registry to a question.
9 September 2026
What a registry can and cannot do — and why we say so where it costs us
Fifth pass, from a fresh adversarial read. Reframed the opening and title: the site ships one disclaimer sentence at every point of sale, not four sentences on every page. Named the revocation flag among the always-shown fields; narrowed "specific type" to assistance-work sub-type; separated the three provincial-card positions; softened four other sentences.
9 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in Canada
Added "The document, exactly" — what the trainer-issued document is and who may issue it, from ATPDR s.51(2)(b) and Tinkess v Air Canada, 90-AT-A-2022 (read in full in the browser).
9 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in Canada
Marked verified by the founder after source checks.
9 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in Canada
Decision 105-AT-C-A-2023 read in full — respondents named, findings and severance stated; WestJet notice period added from its page.
9 September 2026
Why we built Scout to answer only from verified pages
First draft, written against the assistant's own code — lib/assistant/system-prompt.ts, lib/assistant/retrieval.ts, lib/assistant/enabled.ts and scripts/check-scout.mjs — as the primary source for every claim about how Scout works.
9 September 2026
Why we built Scout to answer only from verified pages
Second read against the code. Undated the Yukon question (only the decision is dated); seven of sixteen cases, not "most", run with no passages; the three test runs are a hand practice, not code; the fixture and distress cases described as they are actually asserted; "we keep the unanswered questions" reframed as intent, since nothing logs them yet; one comparative performance claim removed.
9 September 2026
What a service dog record is actually for
Card described as digital (wallet pass, download, print) after the 8 September product decision. No legal claim changed.
9 September 2026
Where your service dog can relieve itself at an airport: the CTA spells out the rule
Marked verified by the founder.
9 September 2026
Where your service dog can relieve itself at an airport: the CTA spells out the rule
Added a citation: section 227 sets out the relief areas themselves, but it is section 215(c) that requires a terminal to publish where they are. That sentence now cites the section it rests on.
9 September 2026
Where your service dog can relieve itself at an airport: the CTA spells out the rule
New item.
9 September 2026
The Act's status still cannot be confirmed from a Prince Edward Island government source: the province's legislation portal answers every request from this machine with a bot challenge rather than the page, and searches of the site for "dog act" and "service dog" returned no such Act. What the page says about the Act rests on secondary reporting, and the page says so in its own status warning.
9 September 2026
How to ask a landlord or condo for accommodation
Marked verified by the founder after source checks.
9 September 2026
How to ask a landlord or condo for accommodation
RTA s.14 and BC GDSDA s.3 confirmed against the official sites.
9 September 2026
The sign in the window is on your side
First published, after checking O. Reg. 493/17 s.14, Toronto Public Health and the City's by-law enforcement page.
9 September 2026
The sign in the window is on your side
Dropped the quotation marks from s.14(1), because the only text we could find predates a 2020 amendment. Corrected the emotional support animal paragraph to Ontario's two-part test, and narrowed "no registry grants entry" to private registries.
9 September 2026
The sign in the window is on your side
Read section 14 on e-Laws and restored the quotations of s.14(1) and s.14(2) paragraph 1 word for word, and added the operator's discretion under paragraphs 4 and 5.
9 September 2026
The sign in the window is on your side
Photographed the sign. Its wording is now quoted word for word, and the superseded regulation printed on it is stated as fact rather than as a possibility.
9 September 2026
The sign in the window is on your side
Photograph of the sign added to the page — the first image on any page here.
9 September 2026
The sign in the window is on your side
Reframed as a first-person field note — we went and photographed the sign — rather than a walkthrough written in the second person. No invented handler and no customer story.
9 September 2026
The sign in the window is on your side
Checked against section 14 of O. Reg. 493/17 on e-Laws, with the sign photographed in person.
9 September 2026
Every quotation on the page was re-checked against the Human Rights Commission's service animal brochure and found verbatim: the self-trained definition, the medical-evidence test, the certification passage, the three appropriate questions, the two inappropriate ones, the wheelchair comparison, the existing-policy warning, and the passage on controlling the animal's behaviour.
9 September 2026
Trainer attestation for air travel: a template your trainer can complete
Marked verified by the founder.
9 September 2026
Trainer attestation for air travel: a template your trainer can complete
Checked against the regulation before publishing: the section 51(2)(b) quotation, the section 51(3) rule about a carrier keeping an electronic copy, and the definition of "service dog" in section 1 all read as this page describes them.
9 September 2026
Trainer attestation for air travel: a template your trainer can complete
Both trainer associations named in the Agency's quotation still exist under those names — the Canadian Association of Guide and Assistance Dog Schools, and the Canadian Association of Service Dog Trainers, which now also trades as the Canadian Association of Professional Dog Trainers.
9 September 2026
Trainer attestation for air travel: a template your trainer can complete
New page.
9 September 2026
The CTA restates what airlines owe a service dog team — and what they may ask
Marked verified by the founder.
9 September 2026
The CTA restates what airlines owe a service dog team — and what they may ask
Corrected: this item said the regulation requires "no fee for the dog". Section 31(2) lifts the no-charge rule for the service dog provisions on flights between Canada and another country, so the dog and the adjacent seat are required either way but only a domestic flight is free of charge. The sentence now says so, and section 31 is cited.
9 September 2026
The CTA restates what airlines owe a service dog team — and what they may ask
New item.
8 September 2026
I was refused entry with my service dog. What now?
New page.
8 September 2026
Taking your service dog to the United States
New page.
8 September 2026
Flying with a service dog in Canada
New page.
8 September 2026
How to ask a landlord or condo for accommodation
New page.
What ServDog is
ServDog is a private registry. It is not a government agency, is not affiliated with any provincial program, the Canadian Transportation Agency, or the ADA, and registration does not create or confer any legal rights.
- Registration is not required anywhere in Canada.
- Nothing we issue conveys rights.
- There is no national standard for service dogs in Canada.
- We do not sell clinician letters.