Montreal tenants fight to keep pets after landlord orders them out | 24CA News

When Tricia Bartley moved into her small higher duplex in NDG in 2012, she signed a lease that forbade her from having animals. But the house owners of her buildings had pets themselves, and informed her she may hold her nine-year-old cat Lola till she died.

“They said I could keep her and not to get a new one,” Bartley mentioned. “That was the agreement we had. We were expecting another five years, not another 10. We are so blessed with the time we have had with her.”

Lola is now nearly 20, and is an integral a part of Bartley’s life.

“She is a family member. I have kids Lola’s age and she is family,” she mentioned.

But Lola’s future together with her household stays unsure.

Bartley’s constructing was offered to new house owners in 2021. They visited her residence for the primary time within the fall of final 12 months. They say they didn’t know that Bartley had a cat. Within days of their go to, they informed Bartley Lola needed to go, claiming she had brought about injury to the residence.

Bartley refutes that, and calls the claims absurd.

“They said she had done damages but there is no damage, she has no claws. She has lost a lot of her teeth. She has two litter boxes. She causes no damage.”

Bartley’s downstairs neighbour James McBride is in an analogous state of affairs along with his canine Buster.

“He is all I have got, he is everything,” McBride mentioned.

McBride mentioned he initially obtained an eviction discover two years in the past, however efficiently fought it off. He believes the brand new house owners need to evict him and Bartley for monetary causes. And he can’t afford to maneuver.

“I get it from a business perspective. We pay low rent and she wants us gone so she can triple the rent,” he mentioned. “I have been looking for two years ever since the eviction notice. There is nothing on the island in my price range and nobody takes dogs.”

Global News spoke briefly with the owner over the cellphone. She wouldn’t give her identify, however mentioned as an proprietor it was her proper to determine if pets have been allowed or not, and she or he didn’t like pets. She additionally mentioned she didn’t consider the residences have been being cared for correctly by the tenants.

McBride and Bartley’s leases are up this summer season. They need to re-sign, however say they gained’t surrender their animals.

“People have said that I should have had (Lola) registered as an emotional support animal, but I don’t need a piece of paper to tell you how she supports me and my family,” Bartley mentioned, her eyes welling up with tears.

Housing rights advocates say McBride and Bartley have a powerful case to remain.

“It’s not fair, it’s abusive,” mentioned Arnold Bennett, the director of the Housing Hotline. “The animals were tolerated by the previous owner for a long time without complaint. That can carry over to the new landlord.”

Bennett mentioned there’s a precept of toleration that Montreal’s rental board applies in these instances.

“(The landlord) would have to show the animals were a nuisance. If the animal was not a nuisance, trying to enforce a new clause, tenants should win.”

Bennett mentioned with Montreal’s extreme housing scarcity, he’s seen many instances just like this one.

“Look, (the landlord) is not being nice. And (the landlord) is obviously doing this as a means of harassment,” Bennett mentioned. “(The landlord) would love it if the tenants left so (they) could put someone new in and put the rents sky high. This is what is happening in the current housing shortage.”

Denis Miron, a spokesman for the Tribunal administratif du logement​, wouldn’t touch upon the specifics of this case. But in an emailed assertion, he defined the foundations pertaining to animals and leases.

“It is permissible to prohibit the presence of animals in a dwelling by a clause in the lease. In principle, such a clause is valid and the tenant must comply with it,” he wrote.

“However, a tenant’s failure to comply with a lease term does not entitle the landlord to take the law into its own hands and unilaterally prevent the automatic renewal of the tenant’s lease.

“Furthermore, case law recognizes that, despite the presence of a clause in the lease, the landlord may have explicitly or tacitly waived the application of this prohibition clause, notably by tolerating the presence of the animal. In this case, even a new landlord could not require the tenant to dispose of the animal since the tenant’s rights and obligations are not affected by the change of landlord.”

&copy 2023 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.