Summaries of decisions

Pets

The Tribunal makes summaries of decisions on various topics available to you.

That tool could be useful to prepare your application or as part of a conciliation session. For example, it could help you estimate the amount of damages to which you are entitled or the nature of the orders likely to be issued by the Tribunal.

Warning

The following examples of judgements are provided for information purposes only.

Several factors can influence an administrative judge’s decision. For example, a clause provided for in the lease, the relevance and quality of the evidence provided, etc. In summary, each case is different and each decision depends on the evidence submitted to the Tribunal.

Issue

Lessees are in breach of the lease and by-laws of the building

They own a dog, while animals are prohibited
Summary of the application

The lessor seeks:

  • resiliation of the lease
Outcome

The administrative judge postpones the resiliation of the lease.

Lessees are ordered to dispose of their dogs within 60 days.
Reasons

The clause prohibiting the presence of animals is legal.

No tolerance on the part of the lessor.

Lack of specific and comprehensive medical evidence allowing lessee to keep their dogs for pet therapy purposes.

It is inappropriate to distinguish between the type of animal or its temperament (small dog or hound).
Full judgment

Habitations des Rivières de l’Outaouais c. Aragon (November 19, 2018)

 

Issue

Lessees is in breach of the lease and the building by-law

She has a rabbit, even though animals are prohibited
Summary of the application

The lessor seeks:

  • resiliation of the lease
Outcome

The lessee is ordered to dispose of her rabbit within 30 days.
Reasons

No evidence that the lessor generally tolerates the presence of animals in the building.

Lack of specific and comprehensive medical evidence allowing lessee to keep her rabbit for pet therapy purposes.

To conclude that a case of pet therapy exists, it is necessary to go beyond demonstrating the benefits that the presence of a pet provides to an individual, whether they are sick or not.

In the context of the analysis of the defence of pet therapy, it is inappropriate to make a distinction or apply a favourable or unfavourable bias, depending on the type of animal or its temperament.
Full judgment

Office municipal d'habitation de Salaberry-de-Valleyfield c. Berniqué* (April 4, 2019)

* Application for leave to appeal allowed

 

Issue

The lessee is in breach of the clause in the lease prohibiting the keeping of animals.

On February 14, 2008, the Régie du logement recognized the validity of this clause but suspended its application, given the lessee’s specific condition.

Following the death of his two dogs, the lessee adopted a new one.

The lessor argues that this fact constitutes a change in the situation that existed when the Régie rendered its decision.
Summary of the application

The lessor applies for:

  • an order for the lessee to comply with the clause prohibiting the keeping of animals
Outcome

The lessor’s proceeding is dismissed.
Reasons

The lessor did not justify how the dog’s identity is a determining factor in the application of the pet therapy defence.

An individual’s specific needs must be considered, not the identity of the animal.

The first decision of the Régie must be followed as long as the lessee’s condition and circumstances remain the same.
Full judgment

Bilodeau en sa qualité de fiduciaire (Fiducie André Bilodeau) c. Chabot* (March 7, 2019)

* Application to appeal allowed

 

Issue

Prohibition on keeping animals

Replacement of animals
Summary of the application

The lessor appeals:

  • a decision of the Régie du logement dismissing her application for a specific performance of the lessee’s obligations
Outcome

The lessor’s appeal is dismissed.
Reasons

In 2008, a clause in a lease prohibiting the lessee from keeping animals in the dwelling was found to be valid. However, the application of the clause was suspended due to the special circumstances of the lessee and the unreasonable nature of the prohibition in the circumstances.

That decision of the Régie was not related to the identity of the dogs, but rather to the needs that their presence fulfilled for the lessee.

The lessee could therefore replace his dogs after they died.
Full judgment

Bilodeau c. Chabot (March 12, 2021)

 

Issue

Prohibition on keeping animals

Zootherapy
Summary of the application

The lessor applied for resiliation of the lease.
Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the lessor’s application.
Reasons

The lessee violated the building’s rules, which prohibited her from having a pet. She had a zootherapy dog.

The lessor failed to establish that the violation of the rules interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of the building’s other occupants and caused serious prejudice.

The medical certificate filed at the hearing proved that the dog’s presence was necessary for the lessee’s health. As a result, the clause prohibiting animals was unreasonable with respect to this lessee.
Full judgment

Immeubles Beaulieu et Collin c. Desjardins (November 17, 2021)

 

Issue

Municipal by-law

Condition of the dwelling

Resiliation of the lease
Summary of the application

The lessor applies for the resiliation of the lease.
Outcome

The lease is resiliated.
Reasons

The number of animals the lessee keeps in his home violates a municipal by-law, which permits a maximum of five pets in one residential unit.

The lessee has not used the leased premises as a reasonable person would have done. His use threatens the integrity of the leased premises and exposes the lessor to fines because of the excessive number of animals. It causes serious injury to the lessor.

It is pointless to make an order instead of resiliating the lease because the lessee has already stated that he refuses to reduce the number of animals he has.
Full judgment

Tanguay c. Bleau (March 4, 2022)

 

Issue

Prohibition on keeping animals

Zootherapy

Lessor who is afraid of dogs
Summary of the application

The lessee applies for:

  • modification of the lease to allow him to keep a dog in the dwelling

The lessor applies for:

  • the lessee to be ordered to comply with the clause prohibiting him from keeping animals
Outcome

The applications of the lessee and the lessor are dismissed.

Reasons

Lessees have no remedy to apply for the modification of the conditions of their lease.

The lessee established that the presence of his dog represented a therapeutic measure that is beneficial to his health.

In the circumstances, the prohibition clause, although it was freely accepted at the signing of the lease, is abusive and may not be set up against the lessee.

Furthermore, the evidence shows that the fear of dogs is not the main reason motivating the lessor to apply the prohibition clause.
Full judgment

Berckmans c. Dugas (March 1, 2023)

Note to reader: The above examples of decisions were selected and summarized by SOQUIJ. In rare instances, they may have been appealed from before a higher court. If you wish to cite one of those judgments before a tribunal, it is recommended that you check the plumitif of the courthouse in question.

Continue searching

If need be, you can consult other decisions with regard to dwelling leases by using the search engine (in French only) available free of charge on the SOQUIJ website. For best results, simply select a tribunal (e.g. Tribunal administratif du logement), and enter French key words such as “bruit” (noise), “moisissure” (mould), “zoothérapie” (animal therapy), “résiliation” (resiliation), “expulsion” (eviction), etc.

See more