Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

can a landlord ban a breed from living in a building?

lezzpezz
November 1st, 2006, 11:53 AM
Just wondering...I have learned that if someone is looking for an apartment and owns pets, they cannot be denied accomodation because of their pet ownership.

Here's an excerpt from www.ontariotenants.ca

PETS AND "NO PETS CLAUSES":
Q6: The landlord says I must either move out or get rid of my pet; Do I?
A6: Only if the pet is dangerous, causes allergic reactions or causes problems for other tenants or the landlord, must you get rid of your pet or consider moving elsewhere.

Even if you signed a lease with a "no pets" clause, if the pet is not a problem for anybody they can not enforce it; such clauses are invalid under the law.

You do not have to move or get rid of the pet unless the Tribunal issues a written order to do so.

Interesting, eh? The ability for a landlord to deny pet ownership with tenancy was overturned in 1997.


My question is, can a landlord pick and choose which breed of dog will be allowed to live in a building? Came across a request for a dog and it states that no pit bull or pit bull type of dog is allowed in the building.

Who the heck decides what breed the dog is? The breed expert landlord? The other tenants? The owner?

phoenix
November 1st, 2006, 12:13 PM
my guess is any dog that falls under bsl in Ontario... the landlord could consider dangerous and could go to the tribunal. Really a landlord could consider any dog as dangerous.
essentially, as in all litigation, it's the judge that decides.
oh- and if any one in the building (another tenant) or the landlord if they live there too is allergic to the dog, then it has to go.

Rottielover
November 1st, 2006, 02:18 PM
I do not know about Ontario, but in Quebec they do.

Angies Man
November 1st, 2006, 03:46 PM
When I moved in, I signed a 6 month lease. That was a year and a half ago and no subsequent lease was ever discussed. So by rights, I'm on a month to month tenancy. It was a 'no pet's' lease btw. So I guess I'm in violation of the original lease.

Yes, Angie is an illegal dog!:sad: :evil:

Not that it makes any difference, I could be out of here with a month's notice. Probably won't happen, tho, as I pay rent on time and keep the place in good order.

I don't have any ideas about Ontario's laws, but I suspect that if having a pet is a problem for a landlord, they can find some reason for not renting to you or for terminating your lease. If there IS a no discrimination law that cover's this, it would seem that you aren't required to disclose your pet, tho.

And I would certainly disagree with such a law. I've lived in 'pet friendly' apartment complexes--and been barked at, listened to howling dogs at 2 am, and stepped in other peoples dog poop. If I didn't have a dog, I would choose to live in a complex that didn't allow them (or rap music after 10 pm, cars with noisy smelly exhausts, people who toss litter off the balconies, etc.)

babyrocky1
November 1st, 2006, 07:27 PM
This is just a guess, but in Ontario a "pit bull" has been labelled a "restricted dog" which I doubt very much has been dealt with in the Landlord and Tenants Act as that would have been expensive and not easy to change. The Bill that Bryant passed may be thrown out after the legal challenge:fingerscr soooo it seems to me that they would not be able to discriminate over breed unless the bullie were "illegal" under bill 132.
Pit Bulls in Ontario have the label of "restricted" not "dangerous" Oh and besides how can your landlord designate the breed when no one else can??? Let them prove hes a pit bull LOL It always comes back to that doesnt it???
In my neighbourhood there are lots of condos that have lots of nutty pet restrictions which I believe they CAN do but I dont think rental buildings have that much control.

Golden Girls
November 1st, 2006, 07:53 PM
I do not know about Ontario, but in Quebec they do.but it's elligal no matter the breed

wdawson
November 1st, 2006, 08:03 PM
even if you own a pit....as long you meet all the legal requirements....muzzle,leashed in common areas.....then you should be fine...and in my opinion the landlord should feel safer having a muzzled,leashed pet around rather than an unmuzzled off leash pet.

OntarioGreys
November 17th, 2006, 11:17 PM
I don't like the wording of the act at least my interpretion of what it is saying with regards to terminations of tenancies under the landlord tenant act where is refers to animals, and to me sounds like a tenant can be serve noticed based on the breed and then inorder to stay the owner must go before a tribunal the prove the individual dog is not a risk

Correction; animals


Notice gives seven days to correct
74. (1) A landlord may not apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant based on a notice of termination under section 63, 64 or 66 before the seven-day remedy period specified in the notice expires.



Application based on animals
(2) If an application based on a notice of termination under section 64 or 65 is grounded on the presence, control or behaviour of an animal in or about the residential complex, the Tribunal shall not make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant without being satisfied that the tenant is keeping an animal and that,

(a) subject to subsection (3), the past behaviour of an animal of that species has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or other tenants;

(b) subject to subsection (4), the presence of an animal of that species has caused the landlord or another tenant to suffer a serious allergic reaction; or

(c) the presence of an animal of that species or breed is inherently dangerous to the safety of the landlord or the other tenants.



Same
(3) The Tribunal shall not make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant relying on clause (2) (a) if it is satisfied that the animal kept by the tenant did not cause or contribute to the substantial interference.



Same
(4) The Tribunal shall not make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant relying on clause (2) (b) if it is satisfied that the animal kept by the tenant did not cause or contribute to the allergic reaction. 1997, c. 24, s. 74.

mummummum
November 18th, 2006, 12:48 AM
For greater clarity, a landlord is not required to rent to a potential tenant and does not have to provide a reason to the candidate tenant for their denial of tenancy unless the landlord is designated as a social housing provider and the candidate tenant or member has applied for rent-geared-to-income housing.

The only discrimination not permitted in accepting or denying rental accommodation is that which arises from the Human Rights Act. In other words a landlord is permitted to deny your application for tenancy just because you have a animal.

Merely having a "dangerous" animal is insufficient to make application unless that animal is banned by a municipal or provincial by-law for residential housing ie. alligators. In all circumstances in making application to the tribunal for early termination of tenancy the evidentiary burden is on the landlord to demonstrate that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises by other tenants and/or the landlord or that the respondent tenant has committed an illegal act. Nonetheless, it then becomes the tenant's responsibility to refute the allegations of the landlord by responding with their own witnesses and references.

The "Fluffy" decision stopped evictions based on the mere presence of an animal in an existing rental accommodation tenancy, it does not prevent landlords from denying housing to people with pets. It is also worth noting that condominiums, co-ownership housing and co-operatives are not governed by the Tenant Protection Act and may therefore make whatever nutty rules they like about animals.

LM1313
November 18th, 2006, 12:58 AM
I wish rentals here had to accept pets. :sad:

igauresh
November 18th, 2006, 04:18 AM
Most of the buildings in our community doesn't allow pets from the lessee. This is because they want to make sure that no poo from pets might be scattered in the building and no noisy sounds at night.

babyrocky1
November 18th, 2006, 05:05 PM
For greater clarity, a landlord is not required to rent to a potential tenant and does not have to provide a reason to the candidate tenant for their denial of tenancy unless the landlord is designated as a social housing provider and the candidate tenant or member has applied for rent-geared-to-income housing.

The only discrimination not permitted in accepting or denying rental accommodation is that which arises from the Human Rights Act. In other words a landlord is permitted to deny your application for tenancy just because you have a animal.

Merely having a "dangerous" animal is insufficient to make application unless that animal is banned by a municipal or provincial by-law for residential housing ie. alligators. In all circumstances in making application to the tribunal for early termination of tenancy the evidentiary burden is on the landlord to demonstrate that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises by other tenants and/or the landlord or that the respondent tenant has committed an illegal act. Nonetheless, it then becomes the tenant's responsibility to refute the allegations of the landlord by responding with their own witnesses and references.

The "Fluffy" decision stopped evictions based on the mere presence of an animal in an existing rental accommodation tenancy, it does not prevent landlords from denying housing to people with pets. It is also worth noting that condominiums, co-ownership housing and co-operatives are not governed by the Tenant Protection Act and may therefore make whatever nutty rules they like about animals. Our co-op allows one dog per house hold, I think there are restrictions on numbers of cats but no one pays attentions, we had three cats, a dog and two rats... no problem, if you live in a co-op you get to vote on the pet policy...if you live in a condo, make sure you get yourself or someone reasonable on your board...most often these condo boards get away with "murder" cause people dont get involved!!!! A few tyrants get elected and you get BSL!

Daisy2943
December 17th, 2006, 01:22 AM
My aparment complex has a ban on rotweillers and pitbulls. Pit bulls are considered dangerous dogs not because of their bad reputation per say but because of their lock jaw. In greene county in ohio pit bulls are banned. Pit bulls are automatically put down even if they have an owner and regardless of temperment

erykah1310
December 17th, 2006, 01:24 AM
Lock jaw is a complete myth , sad fate for the Pitbulls, destroyed just because of their looks, its the same here in Ontario.:sad:

Daisy2943
December 17th, 2006, 01:38 AM
i was wrong about the lock jaw. but i found this information concerning the general concept behind the myth of lock jaw

Contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as a lock jaw. No animal can have a mechanism that will not open just cause it happened. It is true that pits have the strongest jaws, behind only hyena's in the dog family if not in the whole of the animal family. It is said that they can exert upto 20,000pounds of preassure in a single bite. Their jaws are extremely hard to open, as they are just that stubborn. In order to open them you need a break stick, which you put into the space between the pits jaws and literally "pry" the jaws open.

There is no lock jaw, and dont let anyone else tell you so.

jesse's mommy
December 17th, 2006, 08:07 AM
Ummm, I think the original question was about banning breeds in Canada, not the myth of pitbulls lockjaw. :o

babyrocky1
December 20th, 2006, 09:15 PM
but i found this It is said that they can exert upto 20,000pounds of preassure in a single bite. Their jaws are extremely hard to open, as they are just that stubborn. In order to open them you need a break stick, which you put into the space between the pits jaws and literally "pry" the jaws open.

. I guess I must be the strongest person alive then cause I can get my "pit bulls" mouth open with my hands to give him a pill that he DOESNT WANT TOTAKE!
Please dont open this whole discussion AGAIN! All of the scientific documentation exists on this site that will contradict what has been ''said" and Im sure most of us are just too tired of the whole conversation to go looking it up for you. In hansard you will find the testimony of a scientist whoes name escapes me at the moment, that examines the false hood of not only the "lock jaw theory" but also the one ton pressure thing...that statement is also false.
Repeating these things will never make them true but it most certainly fosters false perceptions. These false perceptions have and are continuing to lead to the death of innocent dogs and the persecution of the people who love them.

Odieandmaggiesd
December 22nd, 2006, 09:05 AM
My uncle owns and rents a few places and has been doing so for many years...if the restriction is writtenin lease agreement...it can be enforced..if it's not on the lease and they just decide one day that you can have a certian dog or any pet for that matter.,..they cannot enforce it in any way...jmho

pitbulliest
December 25th, 2006, 02:12 PM
This is bull..you know what happened to me about a year-two years ago?
I applied for an apartment building..the application went through just fine...and then the owner asked if we had any dogs..we said yes..two..he said dogs are allowed in the building no problem..and when we told him one was a Chihuahua and the other was a pit bull, our application became void all of a sudden because he felt that pit bulls were not safe to the public in the building and therefore our application was no longer valid..

IS THAT EVEN LEGAL?...we live in a decent building now, but the other place was really nice...there were no contracts or notices in regards to pets..he simply didn't accept our application because we had a pit bull...and I'm pretty sure this was before the ban came into effect...was he allowed to do this?

I should have slapped him across the face lol

:evil:

OntarioGreys
December 25th, 2006, 10:58 PM
This is bull..you know what happened to me about a year-two years ago?
I applied for an apartment building..the application went through just fine...and then the owner asked if we had any dogs..we said yes..two..he said dogs are allowed in the building no problem..and when we told him one was a Chihuahua and the other was a pit bull, our application became void all of a sudden because he felt that pit bulls were not safe to the public in the building and therefore our application was no longer valid..

IS THAT EVEN LEGAL?...we live in a decent building now, but the other place was really nice...there were no contracts or notices in regards to pets..he simply didn't accept our application because we had a pit bull...and I'm pretty sure this was before the ban came into effect...was he allowed to do this?

I should have slapped him across the face lol

:evil:


A landlord does not have to accept your application if you have a dog, but once you have a lease and while you are renting if you decide to get a dog they cannot use that as an excuse to throw you out

When you get into the landlord tenant act and read "of that species or breed"

it "appears" to be allowed they can decide to give an eviction notice based on breed then you would be force to go before a tribunal to prove the dog is not a danger

Application based on animals
(2) If an application based on a notice of termination under section 64 or 65 is grounded on the presence, control or behaviour of an animal in or about the residential complex, the Tribunal shall not make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant without being satisfied that the tenant is keeping an animal and that,

(a) subject to subsection (3), the past behaviour of an animal of that species has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or other tenants;

(b) subject to subsection (4), the presence of an animal of that species has caused the landlord or another tenant to suffer a serious allergic reaction; or

(c) the presence of an animal of that species or breed is inherently dangerous to the safety of the landlord or the other tenants.




Ontario politicians have created laws that basically say pitbulls are inherently dangerous, so I do think that legally today that any landlord can terminate a lease if you had a pitbull, though I could be wrong, I am not sure if this has went before tribunals or thru courts since the law has went into effect :shrug:

Odieandmaggiesd
December 27th, 2006, 07:48 AM
The breed ban doesn't so much say that their dangerous...but that their restricted...I don't think they could give you the boot because you get a "bully"" as long as you follow the rules...I'm sure it woudl go to court and tehen it woudldepend on the judge's interpretation of it all...as for voiding the lease agreement, I'm guessing you hadn't moved in at the time...so I'm sure he would have been aloowed t do that...they can refuse to rent to anyone they want, even with no valid reason...my uncle has refused to accept tenants because theylooked like crak heads and it went to court...and he won...

Angie J
December 27th, 2006, 09:43 AM
We have rental houses/ appartments and always have 'no pets' in the agreement. This sounds hypocritical, as, I myself am a pet owner, but Gads..., there are alot of irresponsible pet owners out there!!!!

It has been our history to ignore any pets that come into our rental properties as long as there are no complaints, and the owners clean up after the pets, and leash them if there are any children in the yard (if yards are shared).

If you think there will be discrimination of your pet based on it's breed, just say you have a medium sized 'mixed' breed dog, and leave it at that; NO lies, just "cautious as serpents and innocent as doves"..lol.

P.S. I would always advise discloure of the reality of having a pet prior to signing a lease. Often, if you can give reasonable references reguarding your ability to be a responsible pet owner your application will not be denied. Otherwise, you might have a realy crummy time of it with the Landlord... It's not worth the hastle.

Angie J