OUR CONDO EXPERTISE
PRACTICAL ADVICE, CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS, COST EFFECTIVE
LASHCONDOLAW.COM
A DIRECTOR’S
GUIDE TO PETS
IN CONDOS
It is estimated that over 50% of Canadian households own a pet.
In the early days of condo development, pets were thought to be incompatible with
condo living (particularly in high-rise buildings) and many condo declarations prohibited
pets. Fifty years later condo developers are promoting dog grooming rooms and dog runs
as amenities being oered to residents.
With the increase in pet ownership among condo residents, comes an increase in
pet-related condo issues. This pamphlet provides practical advice that directors need
to know about the rights and responsibilities of Corporations and residents/owners as it
relates to pets.
Corporations should have rules that specically deal with pets. Before a Corporation
considers amending or introducing new rules, the rst step is to review the declaration.
This an essential step to see whether it contains any pet provisions.
Rules must not conict with the declaration.
A complete prohibition on pets contained in the declaration is valid and enforceable.
Declarations may also have restrictions on pets, for example, limiting the number of pets
or permitted in a unit.
Any pet restriction in a declaration is presumed to be valid, whether or not it is
reasonable. A prohibition of pets in the rules is not valid.
However, the rules can contain restrictions relating to pets as long as the restrictions
are reasonable and created for the safety, security and welfare of the owners and the
property or for the purpose of preventing unreasonable interference with the use and
enjoyment of the common elements, the assets of the Corporation or other units.
Below are some examples of reasonable pet restrictions that can be incorporated in the
rules:
• weight or size restrictions
• pets deemed by the board or the manager to be a nuisance, a potential
A DIRECTOR’S GUIDE TO
PETS IN CONDOS
ARE PETS PERMITTED OR
RESTRICTED?
LASHCONDOLAW.COM
danger to the occupants or breeds prohibited by municipal or provincial laws
• prohibition on leaving pets unattended on patios, balconies or exclusive use
common elements
• maximum number of pets allowed per unit
• a requirement that all pets must be on a leash or carried while on the
common elements
• prohibition on exotic pets
Pet restrictions do not belong in by-laws.
Tenants in condo units must comply with a pet prohibition or restrictions in the
declaration and any restrictions in the rules, even though a landlord in Ontario is not
permitted to include a provision in the lease that prohibits pets. Similarly, guests and
invitees must comply with all pet-related provisions in the declaration or rules.
Most rules and many declarations state that any pet deemed by the board to be either a
nuisance or a danger must be removed within two weeks. This would override any other
provision that would otherwise permit pets.
Examples of what may constitute nuisance includes:
• excessive barking, whining, etc.
• where the owner does not clean up after their pet
• roaming unleashed on the common elements
• urinating/defecating on balconies
Subsection 117(1) of the Condominium Act, provides that no person shall, through an act
or omission, cause a condition to exist or an activity to take place in a unit, the common
elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the condition or the activity, as the
case may be, is likely to damage the property or the assets or to cause an injury or an
illness to an individual. This would prohibit dangerous pets.
Examples of dangerous pets include:
• dogs that have a history of biting
• overly aggressive dogs
• any pet prohibited by government legislation (ex. pit bulls are banned in
Ontario)
Where the board does not take action to have a dangerous animal removed and that
animal injures a person or damages property, the Corporation could be liable
for damages.
NUISANCE PETS AND
DANGEROUS PETS
Duty to Enforce
The board has a statutory duty to reasonably enforce the declaration, by-laws and rules.
The board does not have any discretion to not enforce compliance; the duty to enforce
applies whether or not there are any complaints. Owners are not only bound by the
condo documents, they are entitled to insist that other owners and residents are
similarly bound.
Directors should strive for prompt, consistent and systematic enforcement. The board
should not turn a blind eye when it becomes aware of any non-compliance or engage in
selective enforcement against only some owners/residents.
Common Responses by Non-Compliant Pet Owners to
Enforcement Proceedings
Enforcement may be challenging. As pet owners are very loyal to their pets, most non-
compliant pet owners will not willingly give up their pets. Common responses are:
• Complete denial of allegations
• Accusations that the board and management are engaging in an unfounded
personal vendetta
• Soliciting neighbours for letters of support or signatures on a petition
• Proposing amendment to declaration or rules
• Hiding the pet during inspections and taking the stairs instead of the elevator
• Advising that their real estate agent said it was ne
ENFORCEMENT
There are two situations where strict enforcement of the provisions in the condo
documents may not be appropriate: where existing pets are grandfathered to prevent
the Corporation from acting in an oppressive manner and to comply with the Human
Rights Code by accommodating a support/therapy animal for a resident with
a disability.
Grandfathering
Grandfathering allows an owner to maintain a pet that may otherwise be in
contravention of the declaration or rules. There are two main situations where
grandfathering can arise:
• where new rules are implemented restricting the number of pets (or size or
weight) residing in the condo or when the declaration has been amended to
now prohibit pets altogether;
EXCEPTIONS TO ENFORCEMENT
LASHCONDOLAW.COM
• where the Corporation now wishes to enforce the declaration or rules that
were not previously being enforced.
In these situations, a failure to grandfather existing pets could result in owners bringing
an oppression application against the Corporation.
To be grandfathered, owners of non-compliant pets are typically required to register with
management and enter into a grandfathering agreement within a specied time period.
A grandfathering agreement should include the following provisions:
• That the agreement is personal to the owner/resident at the time of the
grandfathering, rather than to the unit itself. Therefore, a subsequent owner
or resident would not receive the benet of the grandfathering agreement;
• When the grandfathered pet dies, it cannot be replaced with a pet not in
compliance. In other words, if the owner currently has a dog that is 45 pounds,
and the Corporation has passed a rule prohibiting dogs in excess of 25 pounds,
the owner would not be able to get a new dog larger than 25 pounds.
Human Rights
Corporations are obliged to comply with the Ontario Human Rights Code. Section 2(1) of
the Human Rights Code provides that every person has a right to equal treatment with
respect to occupancy of accommodations without discrimination because of disability.
This means that a resident with a disability that requires a support/therapy animal will
be able to keep such animal even if their animal would otherwise be prohibited by the
declaration or rules.
When presented with a request to accommodate a resident with a support/therapy
animal, the board should request a letter from a medical professional supporting the
position that the pet is necessary to treat the individual’s disability. The letter does
not need to reveal any personal medical information about the individual, including
the nature of the disability. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to further
discuss the individual’s medical needs with the medical professional to attempt to
ascertain whether, and to what extent the Corporation is obligated to accommodate the
individual.
If the disability is obvious and apparent, then the Corporation should not ask for medical
information. However, where the disability may not be permanent, the board may be
able to request additional letters on an ongoing basis to conrm that the pet continues
to be necessary. The Corporation may be required to pay for the letter to meet its
obligation to accommodate.
To amend a pet prohibition or restriction in the declaration, the written consent of the
owners of 80% of the units must be obtained. Before taking any steps to do so, the board
should consider sending a survey to the unit owners to determine if there is an appetite
for change.
The board can make new rules relating to pets by sending rules out in a package to
owners with a proposed date for the rules to become eective (at least 30 days from the
notice). If owners do not requisition a meeting, the rules become eective on the date
proposed in the package. If owners requisition a meeting, the rules are only eective
the earlier of the time at which a quorum is not present at the rst attempt to hold
the meeting and the time at which quorum is present at the rst attempt to hold the
meeting and the owners do not vote against the rules at the meeting. Owners may also
wish to repeal or amend a rule, by requisitioning a meeting for this purpose at any time,
in accordance with the requirements of the Condominium Act. Once the requisitioned
meeting is held, the rules can be changed only if the proposed change is approved by a
majority of those present at the meeting either in person or by proxy.
New condo purchasers are bound by all pet restrictions or prohibitions even if they were
not aware of the provisions when they purchased their unit. As a proactive measure,
any pet restriction or prohibition can be disclosed in the status certicate. While there
is no legal obligation for the Corporation to disclose this information, it may avoid
future compliance issues by purchasers claiming that they were not aware of the pet
restrictions or prohibition. While many purchasers will not thoroughly review the condo
documents before purchasing their unit, the status certicate will typically be reviewed
by their lawyer.
AMENDING THE DECLARATION
AND RULES
STATUS CERTIFICATES
LASHCONDOLAW.COM
NOTES
LASH CONDO LAW
PRACTICAL ADVICE, CREATIVE SOLUTIONS, COST EFFECTIVE
We are committed to helping our clients make informed decisions and create strategies
to successfully resolve condo issues.
LASHCONDOLAW.COM
The information provided in this brochure is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute
legal advice or an opinion of any kind. Lash Condo Law does not warrant or guarantee the quality, accuracy or
completeness of any information provided herein.
© 2017 Lash Condo Law
Joseph Salmon
jsalmon@lashcondolaw.com
416 214 4132
Josh Milgrom
jmilgrom@lashcondolaw.com
416 214 4133
Denise Lash
dlash@lashcondolaw.com
416 214 4130
Eric Laxton
416.214.4142
Claudia Pedrero
cpedrero@lashcondolaw.com
416 214 4131
