Pets in rental housing remain a frequent source of dispute between landlords and tenants. Many leases contain a clause prohibiting pets, but applying such a clause can raise complex issues.

A clause prohibiting pets is valid in principle. A landlord may regulate the use of the dwelling and impose certain restrictions within the limits set out in the Civil Code of Québec, in particular to ensure the peaceable enjoyment of the premises by all occupants.

The validity of such a clause does not, however, in itself provide sufficient grounds to justify terminating the lease. Before ordering the termination of the lease, the Administrative Housing Tribunal will first assess the concrete consequences of the animal’s presence. As a result, in the absence of real prejudice, such as nuisance, damage or neighbourhood disturbances, the Tribunal may decline to penalize the tenant, despite the existence of such a clause.

A recent decision of the Administrative Housing Tribunal has qualified the application of such a clause in light of fundamental rights. On March 12, 2026, the Administrative Housing Tribunal rendered an important decision concerning clauses prohibiting pets in a dwelling. A total ban on pets in a dwelling must be justified. A total and absolute prohibition would be contrary to a tenant’s fundamental right to privacy. It was held that “the existence of these clauses is indeed a clear interference with a tenant’s private life, because they allow a landlord to decide what a tenant may or may not do within the bounds of his or her private sphere, namely the dwelling” (Desjardins v. Amilis inc., 2026 QCTAL 8220 (CanLII)).

In that decision, the Tribunal struck down the clause prohibiting pets and concluded as follows:
“[167] ANNULS the clause of the lease and of the building by-laws prohibiting pets on the grounds that it is contrary to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (sections 1 and 5), unreasonable and abusive”

That decision is currently under appeal before the Court of Québec, leave to appeal having been granted (Amilis inc. v. Desjardins, 2026 QCCQ 2981 (CanLII)).

In another recent decision, the Administrative Housing Tribunal ordered a tenant to part with his cats, on account of a lease clause prohibiting pets, strong urine odours spreading through the building and disturbing the other occupants (Fonta v. Stefanski, 2026 QCTAL 26489 (CanLII)).

That said, even though whether or not a pet is present in the dwelling falls within the tenant’s right to privacy, the Administrative Housing Tribunal has broad power to assess each situation in order to ensure that no serious prejudice results, taking into account in particular the following factors:

• The seriousness of the breach;
• The tenant’s conduct;
• The actual impact on the building and on the other tenants.

The aim is to maintain a balance between the landlord’s right of ownership, the right to privacy and the tenant’s right to maintain occupancy. Everyone has the right to organize their private and personal life as they see fit within their own home. But be careful: “one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins.” A landlord also has an interest in protecting his or her property against the damage pets can cause.

Sources:
arts. 1855, 1860, 1863, 1890, 1901 C.C.Q.
ss. 1 and 5 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
Desjardins v. Amilis inc., 2026 QCTAL 8220 (CanLII): https://canlii.ca/t/kjxdm
Amilis inc. v. Desjardins, 2026 QCCQ 2981 (CanLII): https://canlii.ca/t/klwp1
Fonta v. Stefanski, 2026 QCTAL 26489 (CanLII): https://canlii.ca/t/kml2m