Renting With Pets in Ontario: What Leases Can and Can’t Restrict

It’s extremely common for a standard-form residential lease in Ontario to include a line that says something like “no pets permitted on the premises.” Many tenants sign this without a second thought, and many landlords include it assuming it’s enforceable simply because it’s written into the document both parties signed. Under Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, however, a provision that prohibits animals in a rental unit is generally treated as void — meaning it has no legal effect, even though the rest of the lease remains binding.

This is one of the clearest examples of a broader principle that runs through residential tenancy law in Ontario: the Act sets a floor of protections that a private agreement generally can’t go below, no matter what a tenant agreed to on paper. A landlord and tenant can agree to terms that give the tenant more than the Act requires, but they generally can’t contract around baseline protections the legislature built in — and the right to keep a pet, subject to some real limits discussed below, is one of them.

In practice, this means a tenant who brings home a cat, dog, or other common pet after signing a lease with a no-pets clause isn’t automatically in breach of the agreement in a way that supports eviction. That surprises a lot of people, landlords and tenants alike, because the clause looks perfectly ordinary sitting in a signed contract. For a broader look at which other clauses fall into this same category, see our companion piece on illegal lease clauses in Ontario.

It’s worth being precise about what “void” means here, since it’s sometimes misunderstood. The clause itself has no legal effect — it isn’t simply “frowned upon” or “rarely enforced.” That said, a void no-pets clause doesn’t retroactively entitle a tenant to ignore every other term in the lease; the rest of the agreement generally remains fully binding. Only the specific provision that conflicts with the Act loses its force, leaving the rest of the lease intact.

Voiding the no-pets clause doesn’t mean a landlord has no recourse at all once a pet becomes a genuine problem. The focus simply shifts away from the fact that an animal exists, and toward what that specific animal is actually doing. A landlord generally retains the ability to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board where a pet causes serious damage to the unit or the building, substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the landlord or other tenants, or creates a genuine safety concern.

This distinction matters because it shifts the analysis from “is there a pet” to “is this particular animal causing a real, demonstrable problem.” A quiet, well-behaved dog that never damages anything and doesn’t disturb anyone else in the building is in a very different position than one that barks constantly through the night, has bitten someone, or has caused repeated property damage.

It’s also worth noting that a landlord generally can’t simply decide, on their own, that a pet is causing enough of a problem to justify eviction. Where the issue is serious enough to warrant ending the tenancy rather than just addressing the specific behaviour, the matter generally still needs to go through the Landlord and Tenant Board, which weighs the evidence from both sides before making a decision.

One of the more confusing wrinkles for tenants is that a condominium unit can still effectively restrict pets, even though the Residential Tenancies Act voids a landlord’s own no-pets clause. That’s because condo pet restrictions generally come from a different source of authority: the condominium corporation’s declaration, by-laws, and rules, which govern the whole building and bind the unit owner directly.

When a landlord owns a condo unit that they rent out, and the condo corporation’s rules prohibit or restrict certain pets, the landlord may pass that restriction on to a tenant as a condition of the tenancy, since the landlord is themselves bound by the corporation’s rules. This is a meaningfully different mechanism than a landlord simply deciding, on their own, to write “no pets” into a standard lease for a non-condo rental property.

Beyond condo buildings, certain tenancies may fall outside the Residential Tenancies Act altogether — for example, a room rented within a landlord’s own home where the landlord shares a bathroom or kitchen with the tenant. Where the Act doesn’t apply, the normal protections discussed in this article, including the voiding of no-pets clauses, generally don’t apply either.

For a tenant moving into a condo unit, it’s worth asking directly whether the building has its own pet restrictions, rather than assuming that renting an apartment automatically means the broader Residential Tenancies Act rules are the only ones in play. The two layers — the landlord-tenant relationship and the condo corporation’s own governance documents — can produce different outcomes for essentially the same question.

There are a few specific, recognized situations where a pet can become a genuine legal issue for a tenancy, separate from the voided no-pets clause itself. The first is damage: a landlord can generally seek compensation, and potentially pursue an application to the Board, where a pet causes damage to the unit or building beyond what would be considered normal wear and tear.

The second is substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or other tenants — persistent barking, aggressive behaviour in common areas, or similar ongoing disruption can fall into this category. The third is a genuine, documented allergic reaction affecting another person living in the building, which can be raised as grounds in some circumstances. The fourth is where the specific animal is considered inherently dangerous, generally based on its actual behaviour and history rather than assumptions tied to breed or appearance.

In each of these scenarios, it’s the Landlord and Tenant Board, not the landlord alone, that ultimately decides whether the situation justifies an order — whether that’s removal of the pet, compensation for damage, or, in more serious cases, termination of the tenancy. This mirrors how other eviction-related issues are generally handled; our guide to the eviction process in Ontario walks through how that process generally works from start to finish.

It’s also worth remembering that these categories are meant to address genuine, serious problems rather than minor annoyances. A single stray bark, an occasional accident during house-training, or a pet simply being visible in a hallway doesn’t typically rise to the level of substantial interference. The Board generally looks for a pattern of real impact, not an isolated or minor incident.

Some landlords, often without realizing it conflicts with provincial rules, ask for an extra “pet deposit,” “pet fee,” or ongoing “pet rent” added to the regular rent. Ontario’s rules around deposits for residential tenancies are specific: landlords can generally collect a rent deposit, typically equal to one rental period’s rent, but are generally not permitted to collect a separate deposit tied specifically to having a pet.

The same general principle that voids no-pets clauses tends to apply here — a tenancy agreement generally can’t be used to create a new category of charge that the Act doesn’t contemplate. Our broader article on deposits and last month’s rent in Ontario covers what landlords can and can’t collect in more detail.

Even though a no-pets clause is generally unenforceable, it’s still worth having an open conversation with a prospective landlord before move-in, since misunderstandings about pets are a common source of friction later in a tenancy. Being upfront, and keeping a record of what was discussed, tends to make the relationship smoother even where the law is already on the tenant’s side.

It’s also worth documenting the condition of the unit at move-in and keeping reasonable records throughout the tenancy — not because a pet creates extra legal exposure by default, but because any damage dispute, pet-related or otherwise, tends to go more smoothly when both sides have a clear, dated record to point to. For more on this general topic, see our guide to repairs and maintenance responsibilities in Ontario. If a dispute does arise, our contact page and the broader Leases hub have further resources on where to go next.