🚀 go-pugleaf

"jb" (jbx1@SPAMNUKEsprint.ca) writes:
> 15.  A provision in a tenancy agreement prohibiting the presence of animals
> in or about the residential complex is void. 1997, c. 24, s. 15.
> 
> http://www.orht.gov.on.ca/act/index.html

That's true but there is more in the Tenant Protection Act (Ontario).

Check out section 74. Some reasons for eviction listed:

(a) subject to subsection (3), the past behaviour of an animal of that
species has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment
of the residential complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or
other tenants;

 (b) subject to subsection (4), the presence of an animal of that
 species has caused the landlord or another tenant to suffer a
 serious allergic reaction; or

 (c) the presence of an animal of that species or breed is inherently
dangerous to the safety of the landlord or the other tenants.
 
> "Shawn Girard" <shawn.girard@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> news:Aamj6.22658$HG.5402275@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> Does anyone know the ruling that Judge made this ruling.
>>
>>
>> "Petlover" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:FZfi6.122726$KP3.33964625@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> > Perhaps all you renters out there should know that since the early
>> nineties,
>> > it has been against the provincial landlord/tenant act to demand a
> tenant
>> > with no pets. Pets were deemed by an Ontario court to enhance the
> quality
>> of
>> > life and therefore the judge ruled it was unlawful for Ontario Landlords
>> to
>> > request - or even ask - if tenants have pets.
>> >
>> > It is legal, for you house seekers, if you are asked if you have pets,
> for
>> > you to say no, and move in with doggie or kitty.
>> >
>> > Enjoy and shame on you landlords for trying to take advantage of someone
>> who
>> > hasnt even moved in yet!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
> 
>