A judge's ruling in Quebec has reopened an issue over clauses in residential rental leases that ban pets, a development with a legal basis that could resonate across Canada.
In the decision in the case of Desjardins v. Amilis Inc., Tribunal Administrative Judge Suzanne Guévremont invalidated a no‑pet clause in a Montreal resident’s lease, ruling that a blanket ban on animals as pets violates the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
The case arose from a landlord’s attempt to terminate a long‑standing tenancy because an unnamed tenant owned and kept a dog in their apartment in violation of their rental agreement.
“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,” Guévremont wrote, concluding that such clauses interfere with tenants’ rights to liberty and privacy when imposed without evidence of harm.
The effect of the Quebec ruling remains to be seen and does not immediately strike down all no-pet clauses in residential rental leases, according to real estate professionals and an association representing owners. However, it could shift the burden to landlords to argue for the ban on a per-lease basis.
Last week, landlord lobby group Corporation des propriétaires immobiliers du Québec, or Corpiq, issued a statement "to emphasize that the prevailing case law trend in Québec continues to recognize the validity and legality of clauses prohibiting animals in a lease." Several recent legal decisions have confirmed landlords’ right to determine the conditions of occupancy of their buildings.
“It is essential not to overinterpret an isolated decision. The balance of rights between the parties remains the guiding principle. A landlord has the responsibility to ensure the peace, cleanliness, and safety of all occupants of their building, which justifies maintaining contractual freedom regarding the presence of animals,” Corpiq spokesperson Eric Sansoucy said in a statement.
Elsewhere in Canada, most provinces continue to permit no‑pet clauses in rental housing contracts. British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces generally allow landlords to prohibit pets through lease terms, subject to service‑animal protections and remedies related to nuisance or property damage. In that context, the Quebec ruling stands out for both its outcome and its legal reasoning.
In Ontario, rules around pet ownership are far clearer. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, any lease clause banning pets is void once a tenancy begins. Landlords cannot evict a tenant simply for having an animal, even if the lease says otherwise. Owners can still act if a specific animal causes serious problems, such as persistent noise, property damage, safety concerns or severe allergies, but those cases must be argued on their facts at the Landlord and Tenant Board.
Condo boards' decisions rule supreme
However, even though a landlord cannot evict a tenant in a condo rental for having pets that contravene the lease terms, Isaac Quan of real estate firm KW Living Realty told CoStar News that the condominium boards’ authority reigns supreme.
“Let’s say I’m a landlord, and I accept you and give you the keys, and a week after you move in, you buy a dog. I can’t kick you out for that because that’s prohibited in the Residential Tenancy Act, which is kind of like the supreme document for rentals in Ontario — it says you can’t kick a tenant out just for having a pet,” Quan said. “But it also depends on the rules of the condo board. Condo board rules trump the Residential Tenancy Act, so if a condo board prohibits pets in the building and you move in and get a pet, the building can kick you out.”
The tenant in the Quebec case was represented by Kimmyanne Brown, who is also president and co‑founder of Defends‑toit, a tenant‑advocacy law firm. The judge's decision “affirms the notion that no‑pet clauses constitute an intrusion into tenants’ private lives and an infringement on their right to liberty," Brown said in a statement.
Corpiq's Sansoucy stressed that the administrative judge's decision runs counter to how no‑pet clauses have traditionally been applied and relies on Charter arguments outside the tribunal’s usual framework.
“The regulation has not changed. It remains the same,” Sansoucy, himself a general contractor and property owner and manager, said in an interview. “This is a very specific case, and we’re not sure it will create strong jurisprudence.”
Sansoucy also warned that landlords often bear the first legal and financial consequences when animals cause problems. “If a dog is barking all day, the first person who gets sued is the landlord,” he said.
Sansoucy also said owners can be required to grant rent credits or agree to lease terminations before pursuing claims against tenants.
He pointed to a recent Léger survey commissioned by the city of Montreal showing that about 69% of tenants said they were already allowed to keep an animal in their unit, suggesting, he said, an existing balance between landlords and tenants. Léger is one of North America's fastest-growing market research companies, according to its website.
Looking ahead, Corpiq said it "is currently conducting a detailed analysis of the Desjardins v. Amilis Inc. decision in order to assess its long-term legal implications. The organization reiterates its commitment to promoting harmonious cohabitation within Québec’s rental housing stock, while protecting the fundamental rights of landlords."