Today Thu Fri
It is forecast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on July 30, 2014
Chance of Rain
It is forecast to be Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on July 31, 2014
It is forecast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on August 01, 2014



Is “No Pets Allowed” Allowed?

Landlords often prohibit tenants from having pets. Can they actually do that?

Renting in Toronto is already a trying experience, what with landlords charging outrageous rents for their “bright, sunny” basement apartments. But renters with furry companions face another hassle: apartment ads that boldly state “No pets,” and landlords who won’t rent to someone with a pet.

Anabela Carneiro ran into some renting roadblocks because of her cat, Oreo. She wrote to a landlord about an apartment, and the landlord wrote back with the details. “I mentioned that I had a cat,” she explains, “because it was a private landlord and I wanted to be honest, and she wrote back saying that I couldn’t view the place. She claimed there were allergies in the house.” Emily Cocarell found herself keeping mum about her dog, Pickles, when interviewing for apartments. She would mention she had a guinea pig, and if the landlord had issues with that, she wouldn’t even return her application. “But if they said that a cat or a guinea pig were okay then I didn’t mind lying to them about the dog.”

Pet owners often encounter Craigslist ads like this one.

This might be a good time for a quick refresher course on tenant rights in Ontario. According to the Landlord and Tenant Board website, landlords are allowed to refuse to rent to someone with a pet. However, a “no pets” clause in a lease is void, so signing a lease that has one doesn’t give your landlord the right to kick you out if you move an animal in. Jennifer Ramsay of the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre explains: “Under the Residential Tenancies Act, a landlord can’t evict you for having a pet, they just can’t.” They can evict you if your pet is causing property damage, a noise disturbance, or an allergic reaction (or if the pet is dangerous). But Ramsay says this is has nothing to do with pet ownership. “If your dog goes apeshit and tears out the wall, you’re not evicted on the basis of having a pet, but rather for interfering with others’ reasonable enjoyment of the place.”
Putting “no pets” in an ad isn’t considered discrimination, according to Ramsay, because pet ownership isn’t covered under the Human Rights Code. What is covered is disability, and renting to tenants with service animals is an area that is much more black and white. Angela Hysen, who is deaf, ran into problems when she tried to rent a place for her and her certified hearing ear dog, Magic. After Hysen had provided references and gone over the lease, the landlord backed out, saying the dog, a golden Labrador, was too large for the apartment and that potential property damage was a concern. “The landlord decided not to return my phone calls even though I was really interested in the apartment,” says Hysen.
Ramsay says Hysen’s experience is an example of an open-and-shut case of discrimination. “In the realm of human rights, not many things are much clearer than the fact that people with service animals can go wherever the hell they want.” In this case, Hysen could have called the OHRC and reported the landlord. “The first step would be to try and resolve it really quickly, usually by calling the landlord and saying, ‘You’ve got to be joking.’ Oftentimes, landlords will say, ‘All right, sorry.’ If they decide to be shirty about it, they will face an application at the tribunal, and they will lose.” There are some subtleties that may work in the landlord’s favour, such as claiming to have violent allergies, but even then a doctor’s note must be produced. “Not liking pets doesn’t count.”
Ramsay concludes that, while she doesn’t necessarily recommend sneaking in a pet, a landlord has no grounds to evict you if you do. Renters who feel they’ve been wrongfully ousted from their apartments should contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre or the Landlord and Tenant Board. Prospective tenants are probably best following the example set by Carneiro and Cocarell and just being upfront and honest. After viewing more than forty apartments in six weeks, Cocarell and her roommate were offered a place. “We knew we might lose it by confessing, but I didn’t want to lie to Robin (our super cool landlord), so we basically apologized for forgetting to tell him about Pickles, promised to fix anything she might damage, and signed the lease. We’ve been there since late September and love it.” Carneiro still thinks she should have been allowed to view that apartment. “A small cat can cause allergies through a ceiling? Give me a break. But I didn’t want to live in a house with someone like that anyways.”
With thanks to Robin Rix and Christopher Bird.

CORRECTION: JUNE 17, 2009 Jennifer Ramsay spoke to Torontoist on behalf of the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre, not—as the article originally said—the Ontario Human Rights Commission.


  • http://undefined metabaron

    What about people who do not like pets and do not want to move into a place that has pets? What about our rights? If I am moving to a building I would want to know that there is a no-pets policy. This is ridiculous – everyone can twist and turn things how they please. In current building that I am renting an apartment in, there are more pets than people despite no-pets when I was signing a rental agreement!

  • http://undefined katyenka

    “A small cat can cause allergies through a ceiling? Give me a break.”
    Um, you may have noticed that a large percentage of rental in this city is in divided houses, which share a single ventilation system. Yes, allergens can travel through the ceiling – through the ducts. And it doesn’t matter how small your cat may be.
    Plus, if you sneak a cat in for a few months, even after you leave, it takes at least 6 months for the dander to dissipate.
    Yes, some landlords use the allergies excuse because they don’t want animals. But don’t be a jerk and condemn someone to months of suffering because you don’t take their allergies seriously.

  • http://undefined piccola

    The Star did a similar story last fall.
    Just sayin’.

  • http://undefined rocker

    what if the landlord has allergies?
    I am deathly allergic to cats and dogs. I’ve been thinking of buying a house and renting out the condo I currently live in. If a tenant had a cat or dog, I would never be able to enter the condo I own for any reason. And even after a cat is gone, I still experience severe symptoms (dander does not get out of carpets unless you professionally clean). I’d prefer to prevent such a situation by having the place “pet free”. Not to mention if I ever choose to live there again.

  • http://undefined montauk

    my partner: Hi, I saw your apartment listed on Craigslist, we’d like to check it out–
    landlord: DO YOU HAVE ANY PETS?
    my partner: [taken aback] …no, we don’t.
    landlord: WHY DID YOU HESITATE?
    We saw another place that virtually threw out our completed rental application because we hadn’t *brought* a certified check for the first month’s rent to the open house.
    And another place that was in such high demand, prospective tenants buzzed around the landlords like a yuppie mating ritual; gushing about how they’d love to install outdoor potlights in the backyard – at no cost to the landlords, of course.
    And be prepared to give out your social insurance number like it’s a goddamn business card, because while you aren’t legally obligated to disclose it, they’ll never lease to you if you won’t.
    Frankly, I wish landlords were allowed to use discriminatory language in their ads. I’d rather not waste my time getting disqualified in person. They might not say “only white middle-class ramps-and-fiddlehead-eating yuppie fucks who hate cats may apply” but there’s no real recourse against such discrimination at the application stage – and until there is, anti-discrimination laws in classifieds are rather meaningless. So are many rules in the Act saying you can’t get booted out for being X or having Y – realistically, unless you can hide that you’re X or have Y, they can simply opt to reject you in the first place.

  • http://undefined montauk

    maybe you are, in fact, living in the humane society
    and you just thought it said “human society”
    and that’s why there are so many animals

  • rugby lad

    What a crock. A person who has saved their money to buy a house and then rents out the basement should be able to discriminate on who lives with them as much as they want. Here I thought private property ownership was sacred in first world capitalist economies. Not so much apparently.

  • CanadianSkeezix

    To be fair, metabaron, you are renting one unit, not the entire building, so I’m not sure it’s up to you to dictate how others in your building choose to live simply because you “do not like pets”. If a pet is interfering with your reasonable enjoyment of your own unit (i.e. dog barking all night, allergies, etc.), you may have recourse, the same way that you would in other cases where your fellow tenants interfere with your enjoyment of your unit (e.g. loud music, etc.). If you feel misled by the landlord’s no-pet policy, then your issue is really with the landlord who advertized an unenforceable policy than it is with the tenants in your building who choose to have pets.

  • http://undefined rek

    Thank the fuck not. You’d support a No Blacks or No Fags or No Jews landlord?

  • http://undefined torontothegreat

    if you’re not professionally cleaning the carpets after each tenant moves out, you’re future is that of a slum lord.

  • http://undefined CanadianSkeezix

    It’s worth noting that the pet clause in the Residential Tenancies Act is sometimes called “Fluffy’s Law”. It was first introduced by the Ontario government in the late 80s in response to a public outry following a court decision where the court ruled in favour of a landlord that sought to evict an elderly couple and their cat Fluffy.

  • Greg Smith

    While you have a right to want to live in a place without pets, you have no right to actually do so unless you own that place and you don’t rent part of it to someone else.
    Why would you think that you would have a right to dictate the lifestyle or possessions (depending on how you think of pet ownership) of someone else when it’s not interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of your own apartment?
    And, as the article suggests, the no pets clause in your lease is of no force or effect. This is the case because no pets clauses were specifically singled out as void in the statute that governs rental housing in Ontario. Many landlords still include one, though, presumably so they can either trick ignorant tenants or use it against a tenant in the event that the law changes. Which is kind of a dick move, IMHO. But anyway.

  • http://undefined torontothegreat

    Private Property
    Rental of said property
    Please say you can see the difference? You can’t just do what you want when you rent your place. There are LAWS (which is MORE important in a capitalist society) in our country to protect society from people like you.

  • http://undefined montauk

    What a crock. A person who has saved their money to buy a business and then hires employees should be able to discriminate on who works with them as much as they want. Here I thought private business ownership was sacred in first world capitalist economies. Not so much apparently.

  • Greg Smith

    You thought wrong. Private property is a big deal, sure, but look up expropriation or eminent domain if (I assume based on the tone of your comment) you want to make your head explode with free-market rage.
    Also, you don’t live in a “capitalist economy”, you live in a liberal democracy — a democracy with many, many democratically legitimate laws that curtail economic actors in ways that have been carefully devised (often over dozens of generations) to make screwing other people over a lot harder. You should probably reconcile yourself to that fact.
    Finally, regulation of rental housing doesn’t affect “private property ownership” — no one is preventing the sale of a property, or taking it away from anyone else — it affects the kind and terms of contracts (i.e. leases) that the owner of a rental property may make with tenants. Again, you should reconcile yourself to the fact that you are not free to contract with another person about anything you want in any way you want.

  • http://undefined Gloria

    “Prospective tenants are probably best following the example set by Carneiro and Cocarell and just being upfront and honest.”
    You mean “mostly” upfront and honest? Both of these people mentioned withholding information or outright lying at various times, but eventually fessed up because they liked their landlords.
    There are asshole landlords out there, but has it occurred to us that maybe some of them are paranoid and aggressive because previous tenants *lied* to them, and then had bad experiences? I’m figuring that pet owners who are willing to lie about their lifestyle to get their way aren’t terribly considerate tenants. You couldn’t find better examples?
    I’m not sure what Ms. Carneiro’s problem was with the first landlord, because it was clear that the landlord wasn’t interested in leasing to her anyway (although the landlord should have been much more upfront and simply stated she wasn’t interested in hosting a cat owner). Why be so aggressive about viewing a place that isn’t in reach? Do you really want to rent with such hostile relations?
    “She claimed there were allergies in the house.”
    Allergies — total conspiratorial fiction! People definitely abuse this excuse, but it’s not worth dismissing real allergies.
    “A small cat can cause allergies through a ceiling? Give me a break.”
    I live in a basement apartment, and the entire house obviously has the same ventilation system. Luckily, my landlords seem to be fantastic cooks so the only thing that happens is that occasionally the place will smell of delicious stirfry or bacon.

  • David Topping

    We’ve caught and fixed a small but notable mistake in the article: the imminently quotable Jennifer Ramsay was originally said to be “of the Ontario Human Rights Commission,” but she is, in fact, of the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

  • Greg Smith

    “If a tenant had a cat or dog, I would never be able to enter the condo I own for any reason.”
    If the tenant didn’t have a cat or dog, you would still almost never be able to enter the condo that you rented to that tenant in any case. You could get access with 24 hours notice to make repairs, or access on reasonable notice to show the unit to other prospective tenants… and in those cases, you could take allergy medication and deal with it, or send someone else as your agent. How often do you expect you’d have use of a property for which you accept tons of money from someone else in exchange for the promise that they will have exclusive use of that property?

  • http://undefined Gloria

    Self-correction: Ms. Carneiro doesn’t say a thing about mum-ness or lies. And she says, “But I didn’t want to live in a house with someone like that anyways.” Well, good on that.

  • http://undefined montauk

    1. A great way to prevent tenants from lying about having pets is to not make them feel like their tenancy hinges on it; i.e., by not asking them.
    2. It’s not “withholding” information to not mention you’re a pet-owner, just as it’s not “withholding” information to not mention that you’re Jewish. If they can’t evict you for having a pet, that information is irrelevant.
    3. I am a stable, responsible tenant, and I’d be absolutely willing to lie about having a pet. Do you realize how many landlords don’t like pets and how many tenants are scouring Toronto for a place, competing with me for a living space? If I were “honest” about this entirely irrelevant piece of information, I’d never find a place.
    4. Not everyone has “relations with landlord” as their top priority. Sometimes you really want a particular apartment because of it’s location, physical accessibility, proximity to daycare or school or work or hospital, affordability, amenities, safety/security features, vacancy availability, and innumerable other factors, and you’re willing to put up with some potential resentment from an unfair landlord to make it happen.

  • http://undefined x_the_x

    I’m used to your histrionics, but the idea that descriminating against pet owners (or defending a property owners right to use protect its property from pet owners) is even remotely equivalent to a “no blacks” policy is totally ridiculous.
    There are already ample anti-discrimination laws for the categories you mention that apply to all transactions, not just property rental.

  • http://undefined x_the_x

    Re 2. – you are missing a distinction. You can refuse to contract with someone because they have a pet. However, once you have contracted with them you cannot terminate the tenancy on the basis that they have a pet. The harshness of the legislative regime – voiding a contractual provision that was freely accepted by contractual parties – leads directly to the invasive questions.

  • http://undefined andrew

    Just because a pet owner lies to a landlord about having a pet doesn’t mean they are going to be terribly inconsiderate tenants. I get what you’re saying – if a pet owner lies to a landlord, they are more likely to be less considerate as they have already committed one infraction, so what are a few more? But that’s generalization I don’t know would hold up to scrutiny.

  • http://undefined rugby lad

    I didn’t see what I wrote as rascist and still don’t. You guys are a bunch of nuts. This is like the comments section at the Like that old joke but revised – what do you get when you collect a room full of Torontoist commenters together? A cumulative IQ of about 100. Sheesh. I still say if I don’t like the look of someone – be it long matted and unwashed hair or needle marks on their arms I should be allowed to discriminateas a landlord. There are human rights laws to protect ‘blacks and fags’ as was so eloquently stated – and I never suggested an abrogation of said laws.

  • http://undefined metabaron

    Sure, I am only renting one unit out of many, but there are building for example that you can only apply if you are an older/mature person. I think I should respect the wishes of the landlord. This is not discrimination, this is the choice on the landlord part. Since there are quite a few more pet owners in Toronto than those that don’t have pets, why would they exclude a big market and potentially have a problem finding a new tenant?
    And this is totally not the same as saying not blacks or no jews, but it’s so easy to make all kinds of stupid remarks.
    In addition, I wasn’t misled as a knew about this law years ago, but was always surprised as this is quite different than where I come from.

  • Greg Smith

    “…there are building for example that you can only apply if you are an older/mature person.”
    My understanding is that this is not legal in normal rental housing (as opposed to some kind of long-term care facility). I think the “adult living communities” that you may be referring to are actually condo corporations or some other type of arrangement other than rental housing.

  • Greg Smith

    You said that landlords “should be able to discriminate on who lives with them as much as they want.” From that statement it follows that you would condone any and all kinds of housing discrimination.
    You qualified that sweeping claim in this comment to exclude certain groups (not because you think it would be wrong, but because you are aware that it would not be legal), which was nice of you; however, I don’t think you can fault the previous comments for taking you literally. Finally, not to feed the troll or anything, but your random personal attacks and leap from pet ownership (in your prior post) to IV drug abuse (in this post) as an example to defend yourself seems a little nuttier than anything else I’ve read here today.

  • http://undefined sheleftyouasong

    you took the words right out of my mouth.
    also, i would like to throw in that 25% of the human population are allergic to cats and that cats are can hugely dangerous to asthma sufferers.

  • http://undefined Skippy the Magical Racegoat

    The law are far too protective of you shrill cat-lady types. My building is supposedly “pet-free,” but because of that one silly clause, you can’t be kicked out simply for insisting on keeping a wild animal in captivity, even if you lied your way in. Hence, we get to hear barking all day, the elevators constantly smell like urine, and the hallways are thick with allergens.
    Sorry, I’m on the slumlords’ side with this one.

  • http://undefined fearofcorners

    Oh relax.

  • http://undefined davedave

    By the ridiculous comments here, it sounds like a property owner has to rent to the first idiot who comes to the door – pet owner, smoker, shitty credit holder, or bongo drummer. Because anything else would be discrimination.
    And to suggest that discriminating against a potential tenant because they have a cat is in the same league as dircriminating against them because they’re a different race is beyond ludicrous. You clowns were putting words in Rugby Lad’s mouth.
    I’m with the property owner on this one.

  • http://undefined Astin

    The whole debate is ludicrous.
    Why would pets not be allowed? Noise, allergic reactions, smell, damage, or other inconveniences to the owner/tenants. If ANY of these become a problem, then the owner can warn the tenant, and then evict them if the problem isn’t fixed.
    If these don’t become a problem, then there’s no issue.

  • http://undefined torontothegreat

    oh stfu?

  • http://undefined friend68

    So, if the owner asks a prospective tenant if they have a pet and they lie, saying they don’t have one when they do, can that owner terminate the lease on the basis of having been lied to as part of the application?

  • David Newland

    “Imminently” quotable? Meaning, she’ll start being quotable sometime soon?

  • David Topping

    You are truly the pre-eminent typo spotter amongst commenters, David Newland.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    Indeed, the issue was resolved in the 80s: a landlord cannot enforce a clause in a lease that is illegal. Either you fight the landlord when signing the lease, or you “ask forgiveness, rather than permission” while having the law on your side.

  • http://undefined chenyip

    And then by those set of circumstances, recourse perhaps leading to eviction is possible. But it’s due to the fact that the pets are damaging the property and compromising the comfort of the tenants.
    But if the pets do not affect the aforementioned, then there really isn’t a problem.

  • http://undefined billcool

    Noteworthy : Condos can refuse pets outright if that is in their condo rules and regulations.

  • kittycrankshaw

    I would way rather live next to someone with a cat or dog than my neighbour who regularly hosts band practice or drumming circles.

  • mccool

    When I moved into my current apartment my roommate and I signed a lease with a “No Pets Allowed” clause while our cats waited in her parent’s car downstairs.
    A week later our landlord came over to fix the sink and played with Hank and Frank (the cats). He’s been back since and has never mentioned anything.
    This has been pretty common in most places I’ve lived in the city and is more commonly a clause written by a slum-property-manager (far less catchy) not the landlord themselves.
    As for large apartment buildings with piss-soaked elevators and barking through the night: that sucks. Every large building I’ve been in to visit friends has sucked for a multitude of reasons including inconsiderate pet owners.
    My advice? Live above a store that’s privately owned. No one cares what the fuck you do and your pets/drum circles/violent lovemaking will be all the better for it.

  • http://undefined montauk

    hahaha. excellent comment.

  • David Newland

    @David Topping: it’s a condition. About as charming as eczema or body odour, I’m sure, but I can’t help it. :-(

  • rapi

    this article is as biased as all the others i’ve read on the subject…no one even mentions landlord’s rights. if a dead fly can spark a debate on cruelty to animals i’m pretty sure us “human” landlords should be treated with more respect…even the rental law was called until recently “the tenant protection act”, as in protect the tenants against the evil forces of landlords from hell…give me a break!!

  • Robin Rix (Guest Contributor)

    The old name, “Tenant Protection Act,” was given by the Mike Harris Conservatives. I’ll leave it to you to determine whether the Conservatives were seeking to “protect tenants against the evil forces of landlords from hell” or were practising Orwellian doublespeak.

  • http://undefined rapi

    ha, ha…another biased comment…there are always two sides to a story, for some reason no one seems to write from the landlord’s perspective…i am actually chalenging you!! the above example from craigs is actually a really good deal…it is not a basement, price is good, excellent location, sounds like a fair offer to me…
    i am a fan of craigs housing wanted ads..”looking for bachelor, downtown, not a basement, parking, laundry and wireless internet a must, pet friendly, have a snake.. willing to pay $500″

  • Cancooney

    I am having the same issue we have pets noone will rent to us I cant believe how these landlords are in Toronto

    • CanadianMalcontent

      Try being in Vancouver…

  • Chucky

    It’s not just like that in Toronto it’s like that everywhere!

  • Tom

    I just read an article that peta euthanizes 90% of the animals they receive. I wonder what is toronto humane society’s statistics looks like. i want to get a dog from them but i signed no pet agreement with my lease with the current apartment. i wish landlords realize that they could save lots of these animals if they allowed pet.

    • Roxy

      If you live in Toronto, then this article is basically saying that a no pet agreement is void. Your landlord doesn’t have the right to tell you not to get one, regardless of whether you signed it. Go save a pet, dude :)

    • melissa

      amazing! i don’t care about the void pet clause, my issue is that i want to adopt a dog from SPCA and they want PROOF that the landlord allows animals!? if it is null and void pet clause, why do they want proof?

  • K.

    This is a major problem in Calgary. If you’re looking for a place that even allows CATS, your options are significantly reduced by at least 50%. It’s crap. Then in cases like my own where you finally land a pets allowed place, they want a $300 “pet fee”, that you’ll never get back.

    • Greg_in_Ottawa

      It is against the law to charge for a pet fee, and or a damage deposit. I doubt many landlords actually know the full extent of housing laws.

  • Lucapuka

    I am in Thunder Bay visiting my elderly mother at her apartment. I have been coming here with my pets to visit (from Toronto) every year for at least 10 years. Recently there was a sign on the elevator saying that dogs are not allowed to ride, but that was taken down. Just now my mother took the dogs out and when she returned someone told her that dogs are not allowed in the building. I don’t know what the legal situation is if the dogs are visitors, as mine are, for a period of two weeks. And my mother has never received notice of any restrictions on pets.

    • LVW

      The landlord can’t do anything about your dogs, as long as they’re well behaved. Tell the landlord to get stuffed, or you’ll file a complaint with the Ontario Rental Tribunal for harassment. I can’t stand these amateur landlords who don’t read the Tenant Act, or think they’re above the law. Stupid Gits.

  • James

    Never tell a landlord you have a pet if the ad doesn’t specify that they’re welcome. Simply move in and tell them go fuck themselves if they have a problem with it. Landlords have the right to seek eviction for problems caused by pets, they do not have the right to restrict tenancy based on pet ownership.

  • friendnotfoe

    There have been studies that show the benefit for people who have pets. I’ve always
    paid a pet fee for having a pet. But the vast majority of landlords simply state no
    pets but say service animals welcome. The SPCA is over crowded with pets that
    were taken there when tenants had to move since it’s become so difficult to relocate
    when having a pet. It says volumes about people who are landlords in this country.
    I know a realtor that has been in the business twenty years and she said she has
    not seen many places damaged by pet owners. I think they simply do not like pets
    once they become a landlord. It’s powerful to deny someone something so dear
    to them as pets are family.

  • Laura Brown

    I have animal hair/ fur allergies and asthma. The writer of this post quotes the woman about the cat causing allergies through the ceiling. But this is pretty ignorant. In many rental places, the laundry is shared. So I would have cat hair on all my clothing from the laundry. It would soon be all over the house and I would be the one needing to find another place to live.

    The laws seem very much in the tenants favour. I don’t know why anyone would rent to someone with an animal if they are going to be forced to accept having an animal using their yard as a toilet, sheddinghair everywhere, causing more garbage, more laundry, more clean up and more damage to the property. I think it’s very presumptuous to think anyone renting an apartment should be pet friendly. If it is your home and you pay the bills you can have animals running around if you choose. It should not be expected or forced upon anyone. Tenants who choose to lie to the landlord about pets will likely lie about other things. It also sets a standard, why should the landlord be honest with you if you feel so right in lying to them.

  • Sam

    Does anyone know if these laws also apply in Alberta? How about British Columbia?

    • CanadianMalcontent

      Nope unfortunately.

  • brooke

    There is a large company out there that called osgoode, and they claim there private company and they only allow dogs 20 lbs an less can they do that?

  • candolf

    Its not the tenants responsibility to live life the way the landlord wants you too.


    My landlord came by for his 1 yr walkthrough last week and I could see the disdain in his eyes at the bar cart I had set up.


    I’m going through this pet thing right now too and it’s SUPER annoying.

  • alex

    Read the law. It says if the pet is dangerous, the person can be evicted. If the person is living there with a dog that IS dangerous, you can report it to the landlord. If you simply have a fear of dogs, you have the same problem as if you encountered one on the street. The elevator is not your property, it’s public space.

    • north49

      No, an elevator is not public space. It’s private property and an extension of one’s right of use; thus, “reasonable enjoyment” extends (or should extend) to such places.
      The problem is, people get very unreasonable about their pets. They often think that the world should accommodate them since, well, Fluffy is soooo cute. (And, before you have at me, I’m a dog lover.)

  • Cameron

    You do realize that alot of the time that people say they dont want cats on a property they are saying that because people have allergies to the cats. Even the presence of cats in the building is enough to set these off. Do you think it is fair to lie on an application for a rental place and bring a cat, that within a few days will ruin a neighbours quality of life?

    • regrettheerror

      If allergies – an actual person’s actual allergies, not the hypothetical possibility of allergies – is the reason, they should say so. Otherwise, a “no pets” clause is simply flouting the law and can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid damage to the property (if this argument in itself was sufficient, landlords could also say “no children” on the grounds that children are difficult to control and would be more likely to damage a property).

  • Cassandra

    No pets allowed, but kids are allowed? Pretty sure that kids are far more noisy and destructive than any pet I’ve ever know but we don’t put sanctions on them …

    Several times children have interfered with my ‘reasonable enjoyment’ and yet … a cat that sleeps all day and makes almost no noise whatsoever is a problem?

  • north49

    Yeah, so the world should revolve around you because you have a pet? What about the rights of other pet-free tenants? What makes having a pet somehow sacrosanct? When you sign a contract that says “no pets”, it’s hard to see how you can’t understand what that means. When you go to work, do you come in when you feel like because you don’t want to “live life the way the boss wants you to”?

  • north49

    But how can this be? If a person enters a building and signs a lease that clearly says “no pets”, why would they either hide the knowledge of their having a pet or buy one later? Caveat emptor.

  • north49

    Wow. Anger issues. It would be interesting to see if ever you owned property (like a house) and had tenants. Or even owning property and having people not adhere to rules you’ve clearly laid out. But I suppose that’s because you think the world should revolve around pet owners. And BTW, paying about a quarter of one’s monthly gross income is seen, by those advocating against poverty and by those who advocate for tenant’s rights, to be about right.

  • sol_chrom