A while ago I posted two blogs (October 14 and September 30, 2008) on “no pet” provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act, saying that tenants in Ontario generally have the right to own pets in their rental, units subject to certain limitations. These limitations generally concern interference of the enjoyment of others in the building or issues of safety or health.

Beyond the previously discussed limitations, if the rental unit is part of a condominium building, the tenant’s right to own pets may also be restricted by the declaration of the condominium corporation. The two cases below provide some insight to the limitations of pet ownership in condo buildings.

In one case+, a couple moved into a rented condominium apartment with their 16-year-old miniature poodle. The declaration of this particular condominium corporation prohibits pets in the building.

Upon the discovery of the dog living in the building, the condo board brought an application before the court, seeking a compliance order against the tenants.

The tenants contended that they had the right to keep their dog in the unit under the Residential Tenancies Act, which stipulates, “No injunction… shall be granted against a tenant based on the provisions of an agreement respecting the presence of an animal in the premises,” subject to certain conditions.

Unfortunately for the tenants, the judge decided that although that section of the Act applies to the tenancy, the RTA only prohibits an order “based on the provisions of an agreement.” Because the order sought by the condo board was based on the declaration of the condominium corporation, and not an agreement, the compliance order was accordingly granted.

In another case*, coincidentally involving the same condominium corporation, the condo board sought to enforce the “no pet” provisions of the declaration against the owner of an indoor apartment cat after the cat had lived in the unit for 10 years. The cat was “invisible” to other unit holders during this 10-year period. The condo board decided to step-up enforcement of the “no-pet” policy only in 2004.

Both the hearing judge and the Court of Appeal declined to grant the order because it would be unfair to enforce the policy against the owner of an indoor cat, particularly after the cat had been living in the unit for 10 years.

+ MTCC No. 949 v. Irvine [1992] O.J. No. 1598

* MTCC No. 949 v. Staib (2005), 205 O.A.C. 15