The apartment I am currently living in does not allow dogs. I signed an agreement (NOT A LEASE) stating that no dogs were allowed.

Anyway, I am leaving because I have found a dog that I wish to adopt, and found a place that will allow me to have him.

However, as per the agreement, I have to give 60 days notice before I can leave. Except I take possession of the dog next Friday, and I still have a month left before my 60 days is up (scheduled to move out last weekend in October).

My mom thinks I should just bring the dog home to my apartment. She says what's the worst he can do, evict me? I've already sent him notice of me leaving. She says if he asks why I have a dog, I say I'm moving because I was getting a dog, but because I have to give 60 days notice to leave, the dog has to live with me for a bit till I move.

My question is, what is the worst that CAN happen?

On the other hand I read somewhere that in Ontario a landlord can't deny a person a pet (dog or cat) unless it is dangerous or something like that..

He won't be a nuisance in the apartment as he would only be there at night as he would come to work with me.

You signed an agreement (which is a contract), if I am reading this correctly, not to have a dog/cat. If you bring in a dog/cat you are violating that agreement. This is breaking a contract.

Yes, you could be evicted and sued for the balance of the rent.

Would it count though, since I'm out in 30 days and my rent is paid to that date? It's a month to month basis, so could they technically sue me for any rent as it's paid up until my move-out date?

My friend sent me this link, which got me thinking:
Ontario Landlord and Tenant Act; questions and answers (http://www.ontariotenants.ca/law/law.phtml#Q6)

Even if you signed a lease with a "no pets" clause, if the pet is not a problem for anybody they can not enforce it; such no pets clauses are invalid under the law.

You missed my point - you signed an agreement not to have a pet. That's a contract. I believe you could be evicted and sued on the basis of the broken contract.

I did read the law and find it rather unbelievable.

I am also concerned that you signed an agreement, gave your word and signature, and are now looking for loopholes.

Ooops - edited after you replied.

I understand I can get evicted, but since it's month to month and my rent is paid up until the date I'm slated to move, they couldn't get me for rent, could they?

I'm only looking for loopholes to avoid having to move earlier than I have time off to do so.

I found it kind of unbelievable too, but found the same wording in the official website.

Information - How a Landlord Can Evict a Tenant (http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/Key_Information/STEL02_111483.html)

"Can a landlord evict a tenant for having a pet?
A tenant can be evicted for having a pet in their unit only if:

the pet is making too much noise, damaging the unit, or causing an allergic reaction, or
the animal or species is considered to be inherently dangerous.
Even if the tenancy agreement has a 'no pets' rule in it, the tenant cannot be evicted just for having a pet unless the Board decides in an order that the pet is causing a problem, or that the pet is inherently dangerous."

And maybe I come from a different place - I'm a landlord and when my tenants sign an agreement with me I expect them to honor it.

But, yes, it appears that you are right and there is nothing your landlord can do.

I'm not trying to be a nuisance with it. I wasn't planning on having a dog this early, but it was the main reason I put my notice in, so I could get one again.

He won't be at the apartment much, considering I don't get home from work until about 8pm and I am out of the house around 7am to go back to work.. and he'll obviously be coming with me to work every day.

If it causes TOO much of a hassle I'll just move earlier, simple as that, but I'm trying to avoid that at all means as I have time booked off to do so..

In Ontario you cannot be evicted in regards to having a pet unless it's a problem for someone else. In Ontario every lease says no pets, it also says no hanging pictures or painting, but people still do that. The leases that are currently used are based on old legislation and don't hold up to the majority of changes that have happened over the years.

In Ontario you cannot be evicted in regards to having a pet unless it's a problem for someone else. In Ontario every lease says no pets, it also says no hanging pictures or painting, but people still do that. The leases that are currently used are based on old legislation and don't hold up to the majority of changes that have happened over the years.



I don't understand what "don't hold up to the majority of changes that have happened over the years" means. Are you saying that landlords attempting to evict under this Statute are not successful?

And to OP - I didn't realize the dog would go to work with you and wouldn't be home alone all day, barking and howling (as you may know I have two big dogs and I'm a landlord so I have one foot on each side of this fence).

My other thought - and I'm one of those up front people - would be to explain the situation to the landlord. I once had a neighbor who HATED dogs. Then I got a puppy, took it next door, introduced them and the next thing I knew she was buying dog buiscuits to feed my dog through the fence. Sometimes the personal touch and a little bit of prep make a big difference.

- Tell me about the dog you are getting - ?

He's a little 16lb Cockapoo, about 1 year old, being neutered Wednesday. Housetrained, well trained, quiet, doesn't mark. Timid, but an excellent dog.

He's a little 16lb Cockapoo, about 1 year old, being neutered Wednesday. Housetrained, well trained, quiet, doesn't mark. Timid, but an excellent dog.


Ahhhh - good that he found a good home.

There's a thread in the dog section with pictures of him.

There's a thread in the dog section with pictures of him.


On my way -

[quote=JudyKayTee;1995624]I don't understand what "don't hold up to the majority of changes that have happened over the years" means. Are you saying that landlords attempting to evict under this Statute are not successful?quote]

Yes that is what I'm saying, there sre so many rental practices that are out of date, and the majority of leases that landlords use are old and no longer apply. When you go to the landlord and tenant board website, the majority of things that are listed on a lease are null and void in regards to what can and can't be done in/to a rental unit. The lease is more or less looked at as the rental contract that states the rental term, amount of rent, utilities and parking.

I just moved several months ago and the lease I signed is from 1986. Landlords can no longer ask for key deposits, or deposits in case of damage etc.. however it is mentioned on the lease that I signed.

I don't believe in being dishonest with anyone, I do think Sariss should explain the situation, nothing bad will come of it in regards to legal repercussions.

[quote=JudyKayTee;1995624]I don't understand what "don't hold up to the majority of changes that have happened over the years" means. Are you saying that landlords attempting to evict under this Statute are not successful?quote]

Yes that is what I'm saying, there sre so many rental practices that are out of date, and the majority of leases that landlords use are old and no longer apply. When you go to the landlord and tenant board website, the majority of things that are listed on a lease are null and void in regards to what can and can't be done in/to a rental unit. The lease is more or less looked at as the rental contract that states the rental term, amount of rent, utilities and parking.

I just moved several months ago and the lease I signed is from 1986. Landlords can no longer ask for key deposits, or deposits in case of damage etc..., however it is mentioned on the lease that I signed.

I don't believe in being dishonest with anyone, I do think Sariss should explain the situation, nothing bad will come of it in regards to legal repercussions.


Yes, but as a matter of law in this particular situation the discussion is not about out of date rental practices and whether the majority of landlords (and I don't know how you would know what the majority of landlords is doing) is using outdated (null/void) leases. I well understand that a lease is a contract, of course.

The law about pets, as believable as it is, IS a law that is on the books, not something that is outdated, and IS enforceable. I was surprised to see that eviction cases using this law ARE successful so I don't know where your opinion that "nothing bad will come of it in regards to legal repercussions" is coming from.

This is a legal board and we all take great pride in our answers, whether it is a matter of education, experience, good research. Your "opinion" is just that and is not based on the law.

Again - I find that law to be unbelievable, I have certainly learned something from this thread and the "problem" has been solved without some sort of Court proceeding which, from all I can read, Sariss would have lost because the law is NOT outdated but is on the books. Maybe it's seldom used but it's on the books.