Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Someone wanted info re: landlord -"No Pit Bulls"

Akeeter
November 7th, 2004, 10:38 PM
Here is the Act

Next time someone is informed that their landlord wants their pets & the owners out -of their rental unit, becasue they have pets. Maybe someone should quote the landlord this:

1997 at:
http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/97t24_e.htm

Statutes of Ontario 1997, Chapter 24Part II Rights and Duties of Landlords and
Tenants: Tenancy Agreements
15. A provision in a tenancy agreement prohibiting the presence
of animals in or about the residential complex is void. 1997, c. 24, s. 15.
(Does not apply to you but others may want to know about this part).

Part III Security of Tenure and Termination of Tenancies Application to Tribunal
by Landlord - Landlord has given notice of termination - 74.(2) Application
based on animals74. (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.
He may try to evict you based on 2(c) but has your dog acted aggressively
towards any of the tenants? Your landlord would have to prove in court that the
breed is inheritantly dangerous, which might require some expert opinion rather
than his opinion alone.

********************

sammiec
November 10th, 2004, 04:45 PM
(c) the presence of an animal of that species or breed is inherently dangerous to the safety of the landlord or the other tenants.

So, if fellow residents complain to my landlord that my dog is "inherently dangerous", we're out!?!

GsdDiamond
November 10th, 2004, 04:56 PM
The landlord would have to prove it in court to have you evicted. Most landlords don't want that kind of publicity.

sammiec
November 10th, 2004, 05:00 PM
*phew!*

I thought I was in big trouble for a second there... those things are sneaky and landlords will try and pull the wool over your eyes!!

Schwinn
November 10th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Also, most landlords are ignorant to this (I've run into a couple). You would recieve an eviction, complain to the...whoever it is you complain to, they would approach the landlord who would say, "We don't allow dogs", and the...again, whoever you complained to would say, "Yeeeaaa...about that. You can't do that". And that'd be it...until you wanted your fridge fixed, of course...

LL1
November 10th, 2004, 05:04 PM
Hard to say what will happen, particularly if the Bill goes through.

Minto Place apartment/condo say they require all dogs to be muzzled in common areas. I have a foster in one, and have not seen that enforced, I wonder if they just say that to be weaselly and CYA and only enforce with certain breeds? They have never bothered my foster with it, nor his doggy pals that visit.

sammiec
November 10th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Minto Place apartment/condo say they require all dogs to be muzzled in common areas.

I have never once seen a dog muzzled in a Minto building!

LL1
November 10th, 2004, 05:08 PM
Weird eh? I checked it out with them before the man could foster for me, and they were fine with him having a dog but told me about the muzzling. When I have been there I have not seen any dog muzzled, but I haven't seen any bully breeds. That's why I am wondering what their intent really is, and if they are just being sneaky about it and not enforcing it with any other breeds?

Schwinn
November 10th, 2004, 05:35 PM
Probably, like most places, rather than get confrontational, in general, no harm no foul. Unless someone complains, then they'll get anal about it. I find that a lot of places there are rules that aren't enforced because those in charge don't want to "rock the boat", unless they are forced to. Like a building I lived in that said no bikes were allowed upstairs. That being said, knowing there had been some bikes damaged or stolen in other buildings I lived in, there was no way I was leaving a stupid-expensive mountain bike in the bike room. No one bothered me about it, because people in general don't want to "get into it".

sammiec
November 11th, 2004, 09:30 AM
Weird eh? I checked it out with them before the man could foster for me, and they were fine with him having a dog but told me about the muzzling. When I have been there I have not seen any dog muzzled, but I haven't seen any bully breeds. That's why I am wondering what their intent really is, and if they are just being sneaky about it and not enforcing it with any other breeds?

That's interesting. My Minto building has pit bulls, rotties, bull dogs, etc. When I got my dog I spoke to the resident manager and property manager and they never once mentioned a muzzle restriction for any dogs?? Maybe each development has their own regulation?

I don't think that a building can really enforce somethinglike that, can they??

Schwinn
November 11th, 2004, 09:58 AM
I think they might be able to enforce it to the extent that a lot of buildings have specific rules for thier own properties. For example, some buildings don't allow satellite dishes, some won't allow blankets to be hung up instead of curtains. I would think that a rule about muzzling your dog would fall under the same category.

LL1
November 11th, 2004, 07:12 PM
Hmm - this is the one on the Links Road at Yonge and the 401 in Toronto.

That's interesting. My Minto building has pit bulls, rotties, bull dogs, etc. When I got my dog I spoke to the resident manager and property manager and they never once mentioned a muzzle restriction for any dogs?? Maybe each development has their own regulation?

I don't think that a building can really enforce somethinglike that, can they??

Loki
December 7th, 2004, 06:53 PM
http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041207-012/page.asp

They also did a story about a landlord that tried to evict a tenant for not muzzling her pitty.
http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041207-017/page.asp

chico2
December 7th, 2004, 08:36 PM
I saw that too,but it looks like the landlord will probably not win this fight.The Pit in question has done nothing to warrant a muzzle.No complaints from anyone,she seemed to be a very sweet,slightly over-weight little Pitty :p

bluntman
December 8th, 2004, 07:49 AM
In Ontario a landlord does not have to prove anything in court, You see the tories introduced the tribunal, to remove the courts from the eviction prosess. The courts were to fair and listend to both sides, Now with the tribunal(sounds like 3 people rite, wrong, just 1 guy) He listens to the landlord, egnores you, and the eviction is carried out. The tribunal has a 95% sucsess rate for evicting tennets, I have been through it, and it is a crock of sh**. Even though she has a super nice pitty, the tribunal may not care, and she could be evicted, but on the brite side, the more media attention she gets the better, the goverment does not like the dark side of the tribunal getting exposed in public.

Spurby
December 8th, 2004, 08:51 AM
(c) the presence of an animal of that species or breed is inherently dangerous
to the safety of the landlord or the other tenants.

This was pointed out to me by the person fostering with me, she will be a lawyer soon, and she is concerned that IF this bill should go through, and pit bulls are considered "inherently dangerous" as per the bill, they don't need to fight anything in court, case proven our dogs are dangerous. This does worry me as a renter. Glad i will have a lawyer friend! She has already said she will fight this if needed, and she pointed this out to the DLCC to be passed along to Clayton Ruby.

bluntman
December 8th, 2004, 11:26 AM
This bill gets scarier and scarier, There could be a lot of homeless pitty owners if it does go through, I'm also a renter, my landlord adores my pitty, but in the future it may be very difficult for myself and other pit owners to find a place to live. I for one will leave the province in the next 2 years if this bill is passed, and the courts say it is a just bill.

sammiec
December 9th, 2004, 10:09 AM
That's not part of the bill, that's part of the Landord Tenant Act. It's been there forever, it's not new... .but now that Michael Bryant insists on calling pit bulls inherently dangerous :rolleyes: we can be evicted from our apartments without a court battle. All the tenant would have to do is show the Act and then say that we have a pit bull - case closed -... it's very scary... but hopefully many landlords do not read the Act....

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

Schwinn
December 9th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Actually, this might work in our favour in the long run. If someone were to be evicted, then the label of "inherently dangerous" could be challanged in court. Since Mr. Ruby has taken up the cause, he would argue it isn't, and prove it through expert testimony, thus destorying the landlord AND the provinces case.

sammiec
December 9th, 2004, 10:29 AM
I guess, but at the same time... people in Ontario owning a pit bull are guilty until proven innocent. I, probably like many others, don't have the funds to hire a lawyer like Ruby. I would just have to move out. :(

Schwinn
December 9th, 2004, 10:32 AM
I guess, but at the same time... people in Ontario owning a pit bull are guilty until proven innocent. I, probably like many others, don't have the funds to hire a lawyer like Ruby. I would just have to move out. :(

I've already thought of that :) ! There are many groups that would jump at the chance to get this into court. It has to be brought up in a case, they can't just challenge the bill. There are several funds set up by organizations for this purpose. I don't think anyone would have a problem finding help to fight this. I know I'd be willing to pitch in what little I have (I'd ask for an increase in my allowance from my wife ;) )

sammiec
December 9th, 2004, 10:38 AM
Thanks Schwinn, you're right they probably would jump at the chance to fight this. That makes me feel a little better.

Schwinn
December 9th, 2004, 10:42 AM
I'm about two blocks from Queen's park. Want me to go pee on his car tires while he's in the legislature today? Would that help?

sammiec
December 9th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Bring Daisy's poo in a paper bag and light in on fire.

Luvmypit
December 9th, 2004, 11:18 AM
Burning poo is a must. He deserves it thats for sure. Or we should all go and heckle during the readings and cheer for those opposing the ban. We can bring those blow horns and whistles. Ok sorry Im missing hockey and am looking for any outlet in which to vent my fraustrations. We can do the wave and have those huge foam hands with Mr. Bryants name on it... but instead of the number 1 finger we can make it the middle finger just for him.

mastifflover
December 9th, 2004, 11:23 AM
I like that could we all go christmas carrolling with our dogs to his house. We could hang around and have hot chocolate

Luvmypit
December 9th, 2004, 11:29 AM
You may be on to something with that one. That would be hilarious. A group of "thugs" with there ticking time bombs singing carrols. I can picture it!

Faceless
December 9th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Protesting near Bryant's house, with dogs on leash, would be classic!

Would definitely bring out the media.

mastifflover
December 9th, 2004, 11:41 AM
I would definitely love to do it where does he live. Maybe we could arrange a field trip of large dog owners and Pits and Staffs all with their christmas gear on. How mortified would he be and nothing he could do if all dogs are leashed

Luvmypit
December 9th, 2004, 11:58 AM
We can read him that Xmas poem about the poor pitty in the shelter.
Oh god that would be hilarious. We can video tape if the media doesn't come and send in afterward. Make him pet one of these dogs. That would be a photo op.

sammiec
December 9th, 2004, 12:07 PM
Bryant, Michael
343 Danforth Ave
Toronto, ON M4K 1N7
(416) 465-3390

Bryant, Michael E
174 Ridgewood Rd
Toronto, ON M1C 2X2
(416) 284-6564

Bryant, Michael J
120 Broadway Ave
Toronto, ON M4P 1V6
(416) 544-9055

There's the MB's of Toronto. Poor Buggers that share the same name....

Faceless
December 9th, 2004, 12:19 PM
Something tells me, he might be unlisted ...

sammiec
December 9th, 2004, 12:24 PM
I realize that, but you Neeeverr know - I found Tie Domi on there once before... now it's not... and Curtis Joseph -- I knew his was right because I know someone that used to babysit for him...

Faceless
December 9th, 2004, 01:03 PM
His middle initial is J, so maybe it's the Michael J. Bryant you listed.

He does have a downtown Toronto constituency.