Why a “No Pets” Clause Is Void in Ontario Leases — and Why That Doesn’t Mean Anything Goes
Section 14 of the RTA wipes out a no-pets clause the moment it’s signed. But section 76 still leaves landlords a real, narrow route. The gap between “the clause is void” and “the tenant has a right” is where most people get it wrong.
My Ontario lease has a “no pets” clause — does it actually hold up?
No — not on the strength of that clause. Section 14 of Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 says a lease provision “prohibiting the presence of animals in or about the residential complex is void.” It is void the moment the lease is signed; signing it changes nothing. But read s.14 for exactly what it does: it voids the clause — it does not hand tenants an unconditional right to keep any animal in any manner. A landlord still has a narrow route under s.76 to end the tenancy where an animal causes substantial interference, a serious allergic reaction, or is inherently dangerous. So once the clause is gone, the question shifts from what the lease said to what the animal has actually done — and a landlord who wants an eviction now has to go to the Board and prove one of those specific grounds. That is a far steeper climb than pointing at a signature.
Source: Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (S.O. 2006, c. 17), s.14 (“No pet” provisions void) and s.76 (Application based on animals); e-Laws current consolidation, verified 2026-08-14.
I’m Arthur Zhao. Here’s a conversation I have with small landlords more often than almost any other: they slide a signed lease across the table, point to the “No Pets” line the tenant initialled, and say — “They agreed to this in writing. A dog moved in. So I can serve notice, right?”
I understand the instinct. A signed contract feels like a settled contract. But in Ontario that particular line was void before the ink dried — s.14 of the Residential Tenancies Act makes it so, and no amount of signing, initialling or bolding brings it back.
The mistake on the tenant’s side is just as common: they hear “the clause is void” and read it as “I can keep any animal I like.” It doesn’t say that. Between “the clause is void” and “the tenant has a right” sits the whole of s.76 — and that’s the part worth getting right, whichever side of the lease you’re on.
→
→
→
→
What s.14 actually does — and the line it does not cross
Read s.14 for exactly what it says and nothing more. The wording is: “A provision in a tenancy agreement prohibiting the presence of animals in or about the residential complex is void.”
Two things follow. First, it targets the clause, not the conduct — the no-pets line is struck out, as if it had never been written. A tenant can bring in a cat or a dog, and the landlord cannot serve notice on the basis of a broken clause, because there is no enforceable clause left to break.
Second — and this is where tenants overreach — voiding the clause is not the same as granting a right to keep any animal in any manner. s.14 removes the landlord’s contractual weapon. It does not remove the statutory route in s.76. Miss that distinction and you will badly misjudge how much protection you actually have.
ℹ️Worth adding: it makes no difference whether the ban is buried in an added term to the Ontario Standard Lease (Form 2229) or initialled line by line — s.14 looks at what the clause does, not at whether you signed it.
How a landlord can actually act on an animal: the s.76 route
A landlord who wants a pet gone cannot simply enforce the dead clause. They have to walk a specific statutory path — and at the end of it a Board member, not the landlord, decides. Here is the sequence.
A notice of termination first — under s.64, 65 or 66
An application to the Landlord and Tenant Board, grounded on the animal
The Board must be satisfied of one of three grounds
(a) Substantial interference — the past behaviour of an animal of that species has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or other tenants.
(b) Serious allergic reaction — the presence of an animal of that species has caused the landlord or another tenant to suffer a serious allergic reaction.
(c) Inherently dangerous — the presence of an animal of that species or breed is inherently dangerous to the safety of the landlord or the other tenants.
Note the wording: grounds (a) and (b) are framed around the species, not your particular pet. That framing is deliberate — and it is only half the test.
The tenant’s answer — this animal, not the species (s.76(2) and (3))
⚠️Don’t be spooked by the word “species”: even if a landlord shows “that breed tends to bark,” grounds (a) and (b) fall away if you can show your animal never caused the interference (s.76(2)) or the allergic reaction (s.76(3)). The statute hands that half of the burden back to you.
The trap almost everyone misses: screening happens before the lease
Here is the part that reframes the whole question. s.14 protects existing tenants — it voids the clause once you are in a tenancy. It says nothing about the application stage.
That means a landlord is free to decline an applicant because they have a pet, and a “no pets” line in the listing is perfectly lawful. The protection only switches on after you become a tenant. The practical result looks almost contradictory: a landlord can screen out pet owners at the door, yet the moment they sign one in, the no-pets clause in that lease is already void.
ℹ️Service animals (guide dogs and the like) do not travel down the s.14/s.76 road at all — they are protected under Ontario’s Human Rights Code as an accessibility matter, a separate and stronger route a landlord’s pet restriction generally has to yield to. I go deep on that in a separate piece on tenant screening and human rights; here it is just a flag.
💡 My own read: “the clause is void” is your floor, not a licence. What actually keeps you housed with a pet is not the dead clause — it is whether your animal gives anyone a real problem. Treat the three s.76 grounds as your behavioural red lines (no serious disturbance, no danger, no allergy fallout) and you stand on far firmer ground than if you had just memorised s.14. And to landlords: writing a ban the law erases is wasted ink — screen at the application stage, then deal with genuine problems through s.76.
This is not the same as a condo’s pet rules
One boundary worth drawing, because it trips people up: if you rent a condo unit, the corporation’s declaration or rules may restrict pets — and that is a separate legal instrument from your lease. s.14 voids the no-pets clause in your lease; it does not rewrite what a condo declaration imposes on the whole building (how a declaration can restrict owners is a different mechanism, one I cover elsewhere). If your rental is a condo, ask about the building’s pet rules before you sign — don’t fixate on the lease line alone.
The bottom line: in Ontario a no-pets clause cannot stop you from having a pet, but s.14 is not a blank cheque either. See the gap between “the clause is void” and “conduct still has limits,” and — landlord or tenant — you won’t get caught out on either side.
Ontario’s Mandatory Standard Lease (Form 2229): Your Rights If a Landlord Won’t Provide It →Before You Buy a Condo: Pet, Rental, and Renovation Rules in the Declaration →Living With Landlord Rta →First-Time Renter Guide →
Frequently Asked Questions
Does signing the no-pets clause make it enforceable?
No. s.14 voids the clause regardless of whether you signed it, initialled it, or agreed to it in writing — a void clause cannot be revived by consent. A landlord cannot resurrect it by pointing out that “you signed it yourself.”
Can an Ontario landlord charge a pet deposit or extra pet rent?
No. The RTA allows only a rent deposit — capped at one month’s rent (the “last month’s rent”) under s.106 — plus a refundable key deposit. s.105 prohibits everything else, including pet deposits, damage deposits and move-in fees. A deposit collected illegally is recoverable through the LTB.
Can a landlord refuse to rent to me because I have a pet?
Yes — at the application stage. s.14 protects existing tenants, not applicants, so advertising “no pets” and declining pet-owning applicants is lawful. The protection only begins once you become a tenant. (Service animals are a separate matter under the Human Rights Code.)
My tenant’s dog barks all night — can I evict on that alone?
Not automatically. You would serve a notice under s.64 and apply to the LTB; under s.76(1)(a) you must show the past behaviour of that species substantially interfered with reasonable enjoyment — and the tenant can argue under s.76(2) that this particular dog did not. A Board member decides on the evidence.
I rent a condo and the declaration bans pets — does s.14 still protect me?
The no-pets clause in your lease is still void. But a condo declaration is a separate legal instrument that governs the unit and the building, and it is not undone by s.14. The two documents don’t cancel each other out; if you rent a condo, check the declaration’s pet rules before you sign.
Arthur Zhao
Real Estate Broker · FRI · ABR · SRS · PSA · MCNE · E-PRO · CLHMS & GUILD Elite · REAIS
VP & Branch Manager, Bay Street Group Inc.
Get expert answers on buying, selling, and renting in the GTA
Discover more from GTA Real Estate Broker | Arthur Zhao
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
