Canadian Landlord Groups Deem Push to Eliminate ‘No Pet’ Clauses as ‘Unfair’
As a petition gains momentum to end pet restrictions in rental housing, Canadian landlord organizations are raising concerns that voiding such clauses in the proposed federal renters’ bill of rights could lead to conflicts.
Last month, Humane Canada launched a parliamentary petition urging the House of Commons to include a specific provision in the bill that would void “no pet” clauses, ensuring tenants with pets are no longer excluded from rental housing.
Cameron Choquette, CEO of the Saskatchewan Landlord Association, acknowledged in an interview with Global News that while landlords understand the growing presence of pets in rental spaces and their importance to tenants, rental housing providers still need flexibility. He pointed out that issues like tenant allergies or potential property damage are reasons why landlords may be reluctant to allow pets.
Kevin Russell, executive director of the Investment Property Owners Association of Nova Scotia (IPOANS), echoed these concerns. In a statement, he emphasized that renters also deserve the choice of pet-free buildings for their own safety and have “as much right to housing without pets as those with pets.” He argued that voiding “no pet” clauses nationwide would be an “unfair” move by the government.
“Imposing a ban on pet-free buildings would worsen the housing crisis by increasing more disputes between tenants that own pets and tenants that don’t,” he said. “Sadly, rental housing providers would be caught in the middle of such disputes.”
He added that increasing the supply of rental housing is the most effective way to accommodate pet owners.
In Canada, the rules regarding pets in rental properties are generally consistent, allowing landlords to choose whether or not to permit animals in their properties, with certain exceptions, such as for service animals.
However, Ontario stands out as an exception to this rule.
According to Oduraa Legal Services, while a landlord in Ontario can initially choose not to rent to someone with a pet, once a tenancy agreement is signed, the tenant is allowed to move in with their pet and cannot be evicted solely for having the animal.
However, the law also permits the removal of a pet if it causes severe allergic reactions, damage to the unit, or an unreasonable amount of noise.
There are exceptions to Ontario’s rule in condominiums, where pet bans are allowed if specified in the condo building’s governing documents.
The voiding of such clauses has been “incredibly frustrating” for landlords, according to Kevin Costain, a board member for the Small Ownership Landlords of Ontario (SOLO). He noted that some of SOLO’s members are unaware of this rule until they attempt to enforce a pet restriction.
Regarding pets in rental properties, Costain emphasized the need for balance. “It’s about finding a balance between having a companion pet and the responsibility that comes with it,” he said.
Both Costain and Cameron Choquette agree that voiding ‘no pet’ clauses nationwide may be challenging. While consistency in regulations is beneficial, they argue that a “one-size-fits-all approach” isn’t ideal.
“Pets can certainly be allowed in rental properties, but there are also buildings where, for various reasons, it may not be appropriate to have pets,” Choquette added.
