Die bahnbrechende Entscheidung ist ein großer Gewinn für Mieter mit Haustieren in Quebec.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-no-pets-clause-rental-housing-tenants-landlords-9.7138728
Die bahnbrechende Entscheidung ist ein großer Gewinn für Mieter mit Haustieren in Quebec.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-no-pets-clause-rental-housing-tenants-landlords-9.7138728
15 Kommentare
That’s so ridiculous
FFS. Some people have allergies. Others want to live in a quiet and clean environnement. Plus, you cant unilaterally allow pets without also allowing deposits for property damages. Judges are often the dumbest smart people.
Yeah but it’s not like we can all just start adopting animals. It’s moving towards case-by-case basis and still needs to be challenged with the TAL. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years.
What if there’s a condo corporation that bans them? I don’t see the article touch on that
Pretty sure the did the same thing in BC years ago. Basically they just make it so you couldn’t advertise no pets / no kids or claim that was why they were not chosen as a tenant; they say its discrimination.
I will say, as a pet owner and renter in BC, there are a lot of bad pet owners out there that ruin it for everyone.
A nice little house down the street from mine was rented out when the former owner passed away. Nice family, her kids took ownership and rented it out while deciding what to do long-term.
The guy they rented it to looked pretty normal. Tidy appearance, decent car, yada yada. Soon, his crackhead girlfriend moved in with their three huge dogs. Big enough to jump clean over a 4-ft fence without issue. I know this, because they were always terrorizing the damn neighborhood.
Their animals were always out, they never cleaned up the shit, the elderly and neighbors with kids felt vulnerable and frightened around the misbehaved and aggressive dogs.
We were all so happy when they finally moved out. Then the real nightmare began for the owner. Due to our complaints about the dogs running wild, they had stopped letting them out into the yard. The dogs had just been shitting and pissing in the house. The renter let it literally pile up. Bags of it were just thrown into the closet and left there.
When they moved out, the owners had to gut the place. Everything had to go, not just carpets and flooring. Interior walls were taken down to the studs, subflooring, etc. The young couple who inherited it were distraught, obviously. I’m not sure who bought it, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live there even after their reclamation efforts.
Fucking trash people, man. I love animals, but I absolutely hate some of their owners.
What happens if the dog has a religious symbol on it’s collar? /S
Quebec: where pets are a Charter right but religion isn’t. I coulda sworn Section 2 was freedom of conscience but maybe it was freedom of cats.
This shit is ridiculous.
I don’t recall a section of the charter saying anything of the sort.
If the government wants to pass a law banning „no-pet“ terms in leases then sure, that’s fine, and campaign and lobby for that. A magistrate deciding that the charter magically grants you a positive right to have pets in your rental unit is the most ridiculous piece of judicial activism I’ve ever heard.
Laws are made of words. Words have fucking meaning. You don’t get to invent meanings just because you want a fucking outcome.
Anyone taking anything other than a cat into a small apartment is an animal abuser.
Edit: you can downvote if you want, just means you’re a selfish, animal abuser.
Do BC next
Bad ruling for people living next to loud pets.
I don’t understand, as the owner of a rental property why would I not have the right to limit my exposure to damages? I can’t charge damage deposits, I can’t charge realistic pet deposits.. what protections do I have as an owner?
One more reason for people to not rent out spaces I guess..
This surprises me. A lot of people are allergic to cats/dogs. Dander lingers for a long time. I wonder if they will allow peanut butter back into schools.
I suppose the next step of this is requiring renters to carry enough insurance that if their cat pisses all over the floor the damage can be paid for. Nothing says you can’t require a good amount of insurance from the renter.
Cat piss destroys homes.