Scratching the No Pets Policy

The emotional aspects of buying a condominium are often as important as the legal ones, and the two are inexorably intertwined. This comes up due to a question posed to me recently. Why can the condominium corporation stipulate no pets when you own your condominium?

The answer is simple. If the declaration and by-laws specify “no pets,” you can’t have any. This is because the Condominium Act allows a corporation to make rules to promote the safety, security and welfare of unit owners, and prevent unreasonable interference in the common elements.

For example, in January 1997, the case of Peel Condominium Corporation No. 499 and Amy Elizabeth Frances Hogg was heard and decided in the Ontario Courts of Justice. She wanted to keep her dog Jazz in her highrise condo, even though the declaration stated no pets were allowed. Hogghad a lawyer when she purchased the condo, had a disclosure statement, knew about the rule, but saw that others were breaking it. The judge found she had to obey the rules. An argument in equity or fairness was tried, and the judge referred to eight considerations. The chances of qualifying on all eight considerations were very unlikely, and Amy had to give up Jazz.

Exceptions to the rule

Sometimes condominium rules may be struck down by the court. There have been a few decisions that ruled in favour of condo owners with a provable handicap who demonstrated they needed the pet to assist with said handicap, like a seeing-eye dog.

Human Rights considerations can override condominium by-laws and rules. In YCC No. 26 v Ramadani, the courts confirmed it would review the board’s conduct to ensure their discretion has been used properly.

In June, 2003 Justice Flynn made a decision in Waterloo North Condominium Corp. No. 186 v. Weidner, where he upheld the integrity of the Declaration and its “reasonableness”. He found that in this case, unless the owner was dependent on the dog or needed the dog in order to live in the unit, the Human Rights Code would not assist. He said a total ban on pets is not unreasonable.

However, in 2005, in the Waddington decision, the landlord sought an order for the removal of Waddington’s two cats. The condominium’s rules provided that, “no pet should be permitted in the building.” The court decided that a blanket rule banning all pets was not enforceable as it was not reasonable.

Another way to keep your pets may be through equitable reasons. In Staib v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp., a provision in the declaration absolutely prohibiting any pets was held by the trial judge to be unenforceable for equitable reasons. The court found that the condominium corporation failed to enforce the no-pet policy for 10 years, despite having knowledge of the cat’s presence. The judge refused to enforce the declaration due to the length of time the cat was allowed to remain, the tenants’ attachment to the cat and the age of the cat.

The moral of the story

Know that owning a condominium is different than owning a freehold home. You must be prepared to be part of the community and recognize that the rules are in effect to respect all residents, and you should expect no exceptions.