The Absurdity Of Rentals Not Allowing Pets

​globalnews.ca/news/8761478/montreal-tenants-landlord-animals/

Currently, there is a fight between 5 tenants and a landlord in Montreal, Quebec regarding pets and not being allowed in the building. Reading the story, it's evident through emails / contracts that the previous landlord had allowed the pets but it also looks like the law might be on the side of the new landlord. The story states that the landlord has given the tenants only 25 days to find a new rental and there are currently appeals in progress fighting the no-animal policy. If they lose, they will be expected to leave their rentals and search for new accommodations in a city that is suffering a shortage of pet-friendly rentals.

Why No Pets?

Finding rentals that allow pets can be extremely difficult depending on your location. Landlords would rather ban responsible pet owners from renting than have simple policies outlined in contracts that would protect their property. A lot of the time, it's to avoid the possibility of problems, not even that they 100% will occur, rather, that they may. 

Things like noise complaints from other tenants, & damage to property like broken screen doors, soiled carpets, or other property damage are behind the bans on pets in most cases. To me, it's simply a case of a landlord being lazy and looking for the easiest way possible to make money without any potential headaches. Unfortunately, this is completely unfair and in my opinion, discriminatory towards the average family that likely has at least 1 pet.

Allowing pets is really quite simple if there are provisions put in place to protect your property. Simple solutions exist like security deposits that are returned in the event of no damages to rentals or tenants acknowledging through contracts that damage caused by pets is the responsibility of the renter. These very simple inclusions in a contract give landlords that seemingly necessary peace of mind that their precious property would be protected. It's alarming how many landlords are against pets when most of today's tenants are households that have pets. Pets are increasingly being seen as family members which should reflect in the availability of rentals.

The lack of availability of rentals that allow pets is also hindering the ability of shelters to rehome precious animals. When faced with the decision of having a pet or having a roof over your head, the decision is unfortunately made for you. Shelter animals looking for homes are struggling to be adopted in cities that are heavily against pets in rentals which is ridiculous and unfair. How can we be advocating for adopting animals in places where the scarcity of rentals for pet owners is alarming? It's completely contradictory and pushes pet owners away from their home towns in search of more laxe, pet-friendly destinations. The damage landlords are doing with their no pet clauses when simple, protective clauses could be put in place is absolutely shameful.

When we consider that today's generation will likely struggle to ever purchase their own homes, rentals should not only be affordable, but they should be accommodating. There's no excuse for banning pets outside of sheer laziness. I truly hope this case goes in favour of the tenants of this particular building. Throwing people on to the streets without trying to accommodate them is disgusting and it's time for landlords to accept that pets are family.

HAPPY VEG