Pets (RTA)

TEL-26757 (Re), 2009 CanLII 78527 (ON LTB)

11. As stipulated in the Act, the Landlords had no right to include a “no pet” clause in the lease agreement. Therefore, the issue regarding the Tenant’s pet is without merit; and the Tenant was not required to take any action, including giving up the family pet, in order to void the Notice of Termination.

12. While the Landlords might have been annoyed with the Tenant for seeking advice from local officials and for involving the police, it was reasonable for the Tenant to do what she found was necessary to assert her rights as a Tenant. Furthermore, while the Tenant’s allegations with regards to the stranger who showed up at her workplace as being a friend of the Landlords appear to be unfounded, I find, based on the Landlord’s inappropriate practice of serving documents at the Tenant’s place of work, the Tenant’s assessment in this situation was reasonable under the circumstances.

13. I also find the Landlords requirement that a carpet replacement fund be created to accommodate their future plans to move into the unit, to be not only illegal but unreasonable and in my view constitutes harassment and substantial interference with the Tenant’s ability to enjoy the unit for everyday living activities.

TST-04945-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134584 (ON LTB)

47. It is uncontested that the Landlord considered not renting the unit to the Tenants because they have a dog and that she “compromised” by instructing the Tenants that they could not have the dog in certain parts of the house. I find that the Landlord harassed the Tenants and substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment by restricting the Tenants’ dog’s movements within the rental unit. The Act specifically states that “no pet” clauses in rental agreements are void. This is statutory recognition that tenants are permitted to have pets. It follows that tenants may reasonably expect not to be restricted with respect to their pets. Restrictions on a pet may be reasonable in circumstances where the pet is causing a problem like disturbing noises or damage to the unit, but there was no evidence that the Tenant’s dog had caused any problems.

TST-89600-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42701 (ON LTB)

The Dog Policy

28. On July 21, 2017, the Landlords sent an email to the Tenant stating, in part, “no pets are allowed” and adding some tenants may be allergic to dogs. The Landlord, who wrote the email, adds she begins sneezing upon entering the complex and “there is doggie odour.” The Tenant’s evidence is she essentially ignored the Landlords’ comments relating to pets and continued “dog sitting” notwithstanding the email.

29. In my view, the Landlords’ email, while certainly unnecessary and serve no purpose at all, does not amount to “a course of vexatious comment or conduct” that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Moreover, as with the other emails sent by the Landlords, no evidence was presented that the comments caused “substantial emotional distress.” The dog-related comments do run contrary to the legislation. Tenants are entitled to have pets and no pet clauses in any lease agreement are unenforceable pursuant to section 14 of the Act. Pets are only cause for eviction if the behaviour of the pet in question causes substantial problems or undue damage, which does not appear to be the case here. Be that as it may, had evidence been presented the Landlords continued to make the same or similar comments on an ongoing basis, then, perhaps, the required threshold would have been met.

30. This portion of the Tenant’s application is dismissed because, in my view, DL’s single email comment does not, on a balance of probabilities, amount to harassment and, consequently, did not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenant. This is especially so as the Tenant continued to dog sit and no evidence was presented the Landlords pursued this issue.

CEL-61285-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88101 (ON LTB)

15. It should be noted that pursuant to The Condominium Act, a condo corp is entitled to make rules, including ones pertaining to pets. Further, the occupants of a condo building are expected to abide by condo board rules and/or bylaws. An owner is expected to ensure that the occupants of a unit abide by the rules and/or bylaws. As such, it is not unreasonable for a landlord to expect that a tenant not change the locks without permission, have a second dog, or pay clean-up costs for a pet that creates a mess.

16. I am persuaded that the Tenants’ conduct substantially interferes with the Landlord’s lawful rights, privileges or interests.