Markets 
No-pet clauses have long been the norm for tenants in Quebec and even considered legal.
But following a new ruling by the province’s housing tribunal, after a challenge by a tenant to a no-pet clause in their lease, the door may soon be open for all pet owners.
“We were arguing that the no-pet clause that was in their lease was against their fundamental rights, that are in the charter of rights,” said Kimmyanne Brown, the tenant’s lawyer.
In the March 12 ruling, the judge rejected the landlord’s attempt to terminate the lease of the tenant and allowed her to stay in her rental unit with her dog.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you’ll never miss the day’s top stories.
The tribunal concluded that the clause indeed violates Articles 1 and 5 of the Charter, which guarantees respect for a person’s dignity, freedom and privacy.
“It’s only one decision, it’s only regarding a specific case, but we’re hoping it’s going to set an important precedent for tenants rights,” Brown said.
The Montreal SPCA, which has supported the case since 2023, says the implications could reach much further, arguing lease restrictions banning animals in rental units are one of the leading reasons pets end up in shelters.
“Essentially, what the court is saying is that no-pet clauses are archaic and outdated and no longer in sync with how we as a society today relate to animals,” said Sophie Gaillard, director of animal advocacy and legal and government affairs at the Montreal SPCA.
The Montreal SPCA has been fighting to ban no-pet clauses in leases for over a decade.
More than half of all Quebec families now include a pet, the organization says, and nearly two animals a day are brought to the shelter because of challenges related to finding a home that allows them.
While the ruling can still be appealed, advocates stress that it could mark an important turning point — and many hope it will be the key to striking down a province-wide tradition of allowing landlords to ban pets from their tenant’s premises.
“We have a very clear decision that highlights the fact that these clauses are problematic, not just for animals and shelters, but also from a human rights perspective,” Gaillard said.
Read the full article here
