Under Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act, a lease term that prohibits pets is generally void and has no legal effect, even if the tenant signed it — a landlord cannot enforce a "no pets" clause or evict a tenant simply for having a pet. The main exception is condominiums, where the condo corporation's own declaration or rules can prohibit pets, and a landlord renting out a condo unit may be bound by those separate rules. The law does not protect a pet that is genuinely causing damage, a serious allergic reaction to another resident, or a significant safety concern — those situations can still lead to a valid eviction application under specific provisions.
- A "no pets" clause in a standard residential lease is generally void — unenforceable even though the tenant signed it.
- A landlord cannot evict a tenant simply for having a pet in breach of a no-pets term in most circumstances.
- The main exception is condominiums — where the condo corporation's declaration or rules prohibit pets, that separate layer of rules can still apply.
- A landlord generally cannot charge a pet deposit under the Residential Tenancies Act.
- The law does not protect a pet causing real damage, a serious allergy problem for another resident, or a genuine safety issue — those situations can support a valid eviction application on different grounds.
- Before signing, a landlord can still choose not to rent to a particular applicant who discloses having a pet — the protection applies once the tenancy exists, not to the initial decision to rent.
The Short Answer
A “no pets” clause in a typical Ontario residential lease is generally void — it has no legal effect, even though the tenant signed the lease containing it. A landlord cannot use that clause alone to evict a tenant who gets a pet. The one significant exception involves condominiums, where a separate layer of condo corporation rules can still restrict pets regardless of what the lease itself says.
Why the Clause Is Void
Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act specifically voids lease terms that prohibit pets, reflecting a policy choice that tenants should not lose their housing over pet ownership. This means the clause being in the lease, and the tenant having signed it, does not matter — the law treats the provision as if it were never there, regardless of what the written agreement says.
A common misconception is that signing a lease with a no-pets clause creates a binding obligation not to have one. Because the clause is void by law, this isn't the case — but that doesn't mean every pet-related dispute automatically favours the tenant, as the sections below explain.
The Condominium Exception
Where the rental unit is in a condominium, a separate set of rules can apply: the condo corporation's own declaration or rules may prohibit pets, and this layer of restriction is distinct from the ordinary lease-clause rule that would otherwise be void. A landlord renting out a condo unit can be bound by these condo-level restrictions, and may in turn seek to enforce them against a tenant. Anyone renting or renting out a condo unit should specifically check the declaration and rules, not just assume the general no-pets-clause rule settles the question.
Pet Deposits Are Not Permitted
Separately from the no-pets clause issue, a landlord generally cannot charge a pet deposit under the Residential Tenancies Act — there is no mechanism for an additional deposit tied specifically to pet ownership, beyond the ordinary rent deposit rules that apply to any tenancy. A request for a specific "pet deposit" on top of normal deposit rules is generally not enforceable.
What the Law Doesn't Protect
The void no-pets clause does not give a pet a free pass to cause real problems. A landlord can still pursue an eviction application where a pet causes genuine damage to the unit — see our guide on whether a landlord can charge a tenant for damage in Ontario — or where the pet creates a serious allergic reaction for another resident, or a genuine safety concern, such as aggressive behaviour toward others in the building. These situations are evaluated on their own facts, separate from whatever the lease says about pets generally.
Tenants sometimes assume that because the no-pets clause itself is unenforceable, there is no risk at all in getting any pet. That isn't accurate — a pet that genuinely damages the unit or seriously affects other residents can still expose a tenant to a valid eviction application, just not one based on the pet clause itself.
Before You Sign: A Different Story
The protection against no-pets clauses applies to an existing tenancy — it does not require a landlord to rent to a prospective tenant in the first place. Before a tenancy begins, a landlord who learns an applicant has a pet can generally choose not to proceed with that applicant, the same way they could decline for other legitimate reasons unrelated to protected grounds under human rights law, or ask for a guarantor if the overall application is otherwise borderline.
What to Do If There's a Dispute
If you are a tenant facing threats of eviction over a pet alone, understand that the clause itself is likely unenforceable, but get advice promptly if the landlord is also alleging damage or a safety issue. If you are a landlord dealing with a pet that is genuinely causing damage or a serious problem for other residents, document it carefully and consider an LTB application on the appropriate grounds rather than relying on the pet clause itself — and check our guide on LTB application fees before filing. A pet-related damage dispute often raises the same questions covered in our guides on withholding rent for repairs, tenant insurance requirements, and, where more than one tenant is named on the lease, roommates and joint tenancy. Call 416-274-2222 for a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Generally, no. A lease clause prohibiting pets is void under the Residential Tenancies Act, so simply having a pet in breach of that clause is not, by itself, a valid basis for eviction. There are narrower exceptions where a pet causes genuine problems — see the "real limits" section.
Not necessarily in the same way. If the condominium corporation's own declaration or rules prohibit pets, that separate layer of rules can still restrict pets in the unit, even though the ordinary lease-clause rule would otherwise be void. Check whether the property is a condo and what its specific declaration says.
Generally no. Pet deposits are not permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act — a landlord cannot require an additional deposit specifically because a tenant has a pet, on top of the ordinary rent deposit rules that already apply.
Yes. The pet-clause protection does not shield a tenant from the consequences of actual damage caused by a pet, which can support an eviction application on grounds related to damage, separate from the pet itself.
This is one of the recognized exceptions where a pet can become a legitimate basis for action, since it can raise genuine health and safety considerations for other residents that the law does take seriously.
Before a tenancy begins, yes — the protections under the Residential Tenancies Act apply once someone is a tenant. A landlord deciding whether to rent to a prospective tenant who discloses having a pet is a different situation, and the landlord can generally choose not to proceed.
No. While a blanket no-pets clause is unenforceable, a landlord can still pursue an eviction application where a specific pet is causing real damage, a serious allergic reaction, or a genuine safety concern for others in the building — the clause itself just isn't the basis for that.