{"id":10205,"date":"2026-03-24T13:58:27","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T13:58:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hamdanimmobilier.com\/?p=10205"},"modified":"2026-08-19T02:28:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T02:28:24","slug":"no-pet-clause-quebec-charter-rights-tal-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hamdanimmobilier.com\/en\/no-pet-clause-quebec-charter-rights-tal-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"No-Pet Clause in Quebec Ruled a Violation of Charter Rights by Housing Tribunal"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Perspective from an experienced real estate broker<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

No-Pet Clause in Quebec Ruled a Violation of Charter Rights by Housing Tribunal<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

By Rola Hamdan, Residential and Commercial Real Estate Broker
Last Update: May 26, 2026<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t

30-Seconds Summary<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

– Quebec’s Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) struck down a lease clause prohibiting pets<\/strong> in a rental unit, in a ruling issued March 12, 2026, a first in history<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/p>

– The law itself remains unchanged,<\/strong>\u00a0landlords are still allowed to refuse pets through a no-pet clause.<\/p>

– The ruling sets a precedent that tenants whose animals cause no damage<\/strong> or nuisance can invoke in similar disputes.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

What happened on March 12, 2026<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

The case began with a Montreal landlord trying to evict a tenant, M. Desjardins, over a no-pet clause in their lease. Desjardins had lived in the unit since 2011, keeping pets the whole time despite the ban, through three successive landlords with varying levels of tolerance.<\/p>

The Montreal SPCA was granted intervenor status and argued that blanked no-bas are unjustifiable.\u00a0<\/p>

On March 12, 20206, TAL Administrative judge Suzanne Gu\u00e9vremont ruled in the tenant’s favour, stating that “a general prohibition on keeping an animal in a rental unit constitutes an oppressive and unacceptable intrusion into a person’s family life, within their own home.”<\/strong><\/p>

She also underlined that “the evolution of animal protection laws in Quebec law reflects current society and now recognizes the deep bond that forms between a human and their companion animal<\/strong><\/p>

She found the clause unreasonable, abusive, and contrary to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom<\/a><\/strong>, noting that the animals living in the unit since 2011 had never caused damage or drawn complaints from neighbors.\u00a0<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

A first in history: The charter enters the no-pet debate<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

The tribunal relied on a liberal interpretation of the Charter<\/strong>, combined with the preamble of the Animal Welfare and Safety Act<\/strong>, to conclude the clause infringed on Desjardins’s rights to liberty and privacy.<\/p>

This marks the first time a no-pet clause has been challenged on the basis of Quebec Charter rights<\/strong>, specifically article 1 and 5, which protect personal freedom and privacy.\u00a0<\/p>

In siding with the tenant, the TAL recognized that a blanket ban can intrude ones fundamental rights<\/strong>, and Desjardins gets to stay in their home with their pet.\u00a0<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

Where does the law stands after this ruling?<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

The legislation has not changed <\/strong>despite the ruling of this specific case.\u00a0In Quebec, landlords are allowed to refuse pets<\/strong> through a no-pet clause in their lease.<\/p>

Where things are changing now is in the case law.<\/strong><\/p>

A no-pet clause can now be challenged<\/strong> in front of the TAL, which has established that a full prohibition on pets may infringe on a tenant’s fundamental rights<\/strong>, especially if the animal has no records of disturbing the quality of life of neighbors.\u00a0<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

What are the implications for landlords?<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

If you’re a landlord, your rights remain intact<\/strong> for now.\u00a0The no-pet clause stays enforceable in your leases<\/strong>, but contesting it becomes a foreseeable outcome in files where the tenant can demonstrate the absence of nuisance.<\/p>

Several principles are worth noting:<\/p>

– A general prohibition without a documented rationale is now the most exposed position before the TAL.<\/p>

– Cases supported by concrete elements (prior damage, recurring neighbors complaints, building-specific constraints such as documented allergies of other tenants or restrictions in the declaration of co-ownership) remain solid.<\/p>

– Before starting an eviction based on a no-pet clause, have it reviewed by a legal professional.<\/p>

For owners of higher-end rental properties<\/strong>, where leases often include detailed clauses governing the use of the unit, this ruling might be an invitation to revisit how no-pet clauses are drafted. <\/strong>They rest on specific justifications<\/strong> rather than a blanket prohibition.<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

What are the implications for tenants?<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

If you’re a tenant and your landlords prohibits pets in your rental, they’re still legally allowed to do so.\u00a0<\/p>

However, the position<\/strong> of tenants who’s animals have lived with them<\/strong> and caused no damage or nuisance is strengthen<\/strong>. This precedent can be invoked in any contestation of a no-pet clause before the TAL.<\/p>

That being said, the ruling will not automatically apply<\/strong> to every case, as the law in effects still allow such clause.<\/p>

Each file is still assessed individually<\/strong> by the tribunal, based on the facts specific to the unit, the behaviour of the animal and the strength of your defense.<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

SPCA's reaction to the ruling<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

The Montreal SPCA<\/strong> welcomed the ruling. Me Marie-Claude St-Amant, lawyer representing the organisation, indicated that the tenant in this file will not have to choose between keeping a member of their family and being able to find housing. She considers that the ruling will have repercussions on other disputes concerning the validity of no-pet clauses.<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

CORPIC's reaction to the ruling<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

The Corporation des propri\u00e9taires immobiliers du Qu\u00e9bec (CORPIQ)<\/a><\/strong> offers a different reading from SPCA.<\/p>

Its spokesperson, \u00c9ric Sansoucy, argues that the ruling essentially overrides a contractual agreement between landlord and tenant<\/strong>. He notes that a Quebec lease already includes a dedicated section on accepting or refusing pets, and that landlords retain the right to authorize or prohibit pets<\/strong> according to their own judgement.<\/p>

“We need to analyse what this ruling actually says, because in the end, the TAL is going against its own regulations to some extent,” he stated.<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

Pets are already widely accepted in Quebec rental housing<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

According to Mr. Sansoucy, the numbers speak for themselves, and landlords are already very accommodating when it comes to pets.<\/p>

A L\u00e9ger survey conducted in January 2026 for Vivre en ville reveals that 69% of tenants say they have the right to keep a pet in their rental unit. In practice, 45% of Quebec tenants have a pet at home.<\/p>

The CORPIQ spokesperson believes that cohabitation with pets generally goes well in Quebec, which explains why roughly one in two tenants owns one. Landlords support maintaining the current regulations, which protect both tenants and landlords and their properties, he concludes<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>

\n\t\t\t\t\t

Full background of the case: A dispute dating back to 2011<\/h3><\/path><\/svg><\/div>

The circumstances of this case are quite unique. The tenant had been living in the unit since 2011 and always had pets, despite a written ban in the lease and the building’s regulations.<\/p>

Three landlords succeeded one another during this period, each with a different level of tolerance regarding the presence of pets in the unit. The situation does not reflect that of the majority of Quebec tenants with pets, but it triggered a legal process that could have lasting repercussions.<\/p>

On Thursday, September 28, 2023, the Montreal SPCA appeared before the TAL to present its position on the lease clause banning companion animals in rental housing, in the context of the dispute between the tenant and his landlord.<\/p>

The landlord was attempting to evict the tenant for non-compliance with the pet ban clause. During the hearing, administrative judge Me Camille Champeval was informed that the landlord was dropping his eviction request and selling the building, allowing the tenant to remain in his apartment. The case nevertheless continued through to the March 2026 ruling.<\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Frequently Asked Questions on No Pet Clause in Quebec<\/h3>\n