Forbidding Pets in a Lease

Forbidding Pets in a Lease

When a landlord wants to resiliate a lease because of an animal in the apartment[1] he must always prove the serious prejudice the animal is causing by, for example, making complaining tenants testify.

When said animal did not cause any prejudice to the landlord or to the others tenants, can the landlord demand an order to execute a clause forbidding animals? We can think, for example, of a cat who is never going out of a tenant’s apartment.

It was decided by the Court that this kind of clause was legal and opposable to the tenant. When there is such a clause, all the landlord has to do is to prove the existence of the clause and its violation by a tenant which will then justify the Court’s decision to order the tenant to part with his pet.

However, the tenant could defend his position by saying that the landlord has impliedly renounced to the clause if the animal was in the apartment for a long time without the landlord saying or doing anything about it while he knew it was there. “[TRANSLATION] Such tolerance is equivalent to renouncing to the clause that is now put forward by the landlord[2].”

It is therefore of the utmost importance that the landlord brings an action against his tenant as soon as he knows about the violation of the clause.

The tenant could also defend his position by saying that the pet’s presence is for therapeutic purposes when zootherapy has been medically prescribed. In a decision[3] in which the landlord’s demand had been rejected, the tenants explained that “[TRANSLATION] … their daughter has serious health problems” and that following the advice of many professionals including a doctor “[TRANSLATION] they have acquired a little dog to help their child’s development and for her to have affective support” However, in another case, keeping a dog for a kid’s companionship and not for therapeutic purposes was not accepted as a tenant’s defence[4].

On the whole, each case is unique and the decision will depend on the circumstances in which the demand was made.

[1] Art. 1973 C.c.Q.
[2] Société en Commandite Jardins St-Jean c. Fortugno et al, R.L. 31 080418 036 G Art. 1973 C.c.Q
[3] Coop d’habitation la Maisonnée c. Boutin, R.L. 18 100113 014 G
[4] Office Municipal D’Habitation de Sept-Îles c. Dion, R.L. 10 100507 003 G

Partager cette chronique