While aggressive pets are often a source of problems to landlords, section 15 of the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) specifically rules out “no pets” provisions in tenancy agreements. It’s unavoidable that the close quarters of an apartment complex create safety concerns with people sharing common spaces, laundry rooms, elevators, etc.
So...while landlords may try to nip the problem in the bud by simply not accepting people who have pets as tenants, the applicannnt will often be less-than-truthful on their rental application, claiming that they are petless and then move in along with their furry friends. Any no-pet provision in a lease is void and of no force and effect, even with everyone’s consent to include it in the lease.
But that doesn’t mean landlords can’t ever evict a tenant because they have a problem animal in their rental unit. The TPA tries to provide harmony in rental accomodation by setting out the rights and obligations of the parties, and providing remedies upon a breach. But whenever there is a right conferred, there are always limitations to those rights as well as competing rights. Such is the case with the TPA with respect to animals. People have the right to keep pets, but not an unconditional right.
For over a decade in Ontario we have had the Dog Owner’s Liability Act which provides for liability against the pet owner and the destruction of animals in certain circumstances. Last year, Conservative MPP Julia Munroe introduced an amendment to this Act, wherein a dog becomes a “vicious dog” when a Court finds that it has inflicted serious injury in an unprovoked attack. Her amendment increased fines and provided for the mandatory destruction of the vicious dog, without attacking a particular breed. “Punish the deed, not the Breed”, was her motto. This in response to the Attorney General’s introduction in October of Bill 132, amending the Dog Owner’s Liability Act banning pit bulls and other specific breeds. The Attorney General’s bill became law in March of this year.
The newly passed legislation defines several breeds, pit bulls and certain bull terriers, and members of classes of dogs with similar characteristics to those breeds. The Act provides for an outright ban on the breeding of Pit Bulls except as otherwise permitted by the Act. The legislation requires the use of a leash and mandatory muzzling of the dogs still permitted to be owned through the grandfathering provisions in the Act, when a member of a dangerous breed is in a public place. The Act also provides for fines or even jail terms for the owners of a dog which bites or attacks a human. So how do these amendments concern landlords and interact with the TPA? When speaking of termination notices and applications, section 74(2) of the Tenant Protection Act says that the Tribunal can only evict a tenant if satisfied that the behaviour of the animal has interfered with the landlord or a tenant’s reasonable enjoyment, or that the animal has caused a serious allergic reaction, or that the breed is inherently dangerous. But it is up to the adjudicator’s as to whether or not to terminate the tenancy. Generally, a Tribunal member will “not” evict a tenant (I know I never did) unless there has been an incident, notwithstanding the “inherently dangerous” clause.
But there are risks for the landlord who takes no action when there is a problem animal and there are complain
