A recent ruling by Quebec’s housing tribunal has found a rental lease’s “no-pet” clause to be in violation of the province’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, marking a significant advancement in the protection of tenants’ rights when it comes to the issue of pets.
The landmark ruling by the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) stems from a Montreal landlord’s attempt to use the no-pet clause to evict a tenant, who’s lived in the home since 2011 under several different landlords.
In her March 12 decision, tribunal judge Suzanne Guévremont rejected the landlord’s attempt to terminate the lease, allowing the tenant to stay in her rental unit with her dog.
Guévremont wrote that the tenant “had no opportunity to negotiate this [no-pet] clause and therefore faced the heartbreaking choice of finding another home or abandoning their animals” amid a shortage of affordable housing.
The judge concluded the “general prohibition on keeping an animal in a dwelling […] constitutes an oppressive and unacceptable intrusion into a person’s family life, within the very place that is the centre of their private life: their home.”
This is the first time the no-pet clause has been challenged based on Quebec Charter rights, specifically articles 1 and 5 that pertain to privacy and the right to personal freedom, according to Kimmyanne Brown. She’s the tenant’s lawyer and the president and co-founder of Défends-toit, a legal organization that represents tenants.
“For a long time, ‘no-pet’ clauses were generally enforced as part of the lease. In this case, the [TAL] recognized that such clauses can interfere with fundamental rights, including privacy and personal freedom,” she said in an email to CBC.
The Montreal SPCA also supported the tenant in the case, arguing that the no-pets clause was “abusive and unreasonable,” particularly in an affordable housing crisis.
“We are relieved to know that the tenant in this case will not have to face the heartbreaking choice between keeping a member of their family and having a roof over their head,” the Montreal SPCA’s Sophie Gaillard said in a release.
The SPCA has been fighting to ban no-pet clauses in rental housing for more than a decade.
More than half of Quebec families now include a pet, according to the SPCA, and challenges with finding housing that allows pets is one of the main reasons animals are surrendered to local shelters.
Nearly two animals per day are reportedly brought to the Montreal SPCA for this reason.
No-pet clauses were banned in Ontario, with a few exceptions, in the 1990s.
Abandoned pets are overwhelming this Montreal shelter — and moving day will make things worse
Brown explains that the tribunal’s decision, which can be appealed by the landlord, does not automatically invalidate all no-pet clauses across Quebec.
However, this case sets a precedent and means these clauses can now be challenged on these grounds.
While landlords can still include no-pet clauses in their leases, Brown says this decision shows “the existence of the clause does not automatically make it enforceable.”
So if a tenant chooses to challenge the clause at the tribunal, landlords may now be forced to demonstrate that their pet restriction is justified due to a legitimate concern such as disturbance or property risks.
“In other words,” Brown said, “we are moving away from automatic enforcement, toward a case-by-case analysis grounded in fundamental rights.”
Advocates hope the tribunal’s decision will encourage lawmakers to modernize Quebec’s Civil Code in order to ensure greater consistency between housing law, tenants’ rights and animal protection.
“Now that a tribunal has clearly established that no-pet clauses infringe on tenants’ fundamental rights,” Gaillard said, “it is urgent for provincial political parties to make a clear commitment to ban these clauses.”
