Montreal, March 23, 2026 – In a recent decision, the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) declared void the clause of a lease prohibiting animals, finding that the clause was unreasonable, abusive and contrary to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The ruling arises from a dispute between a tenant and their landlord, in which the Montreal SPCA was granted intervenor status in order to present its perspective on no-pet clauses in rental housing.

In her decision, administrative judge Suzanne Guévremont concludes that “[the] general prohibition on keeping an animal in a dwelling […] constitutes an oppressive and unacceptable intrusion into a person’s family life, within the very place that is the centre of their private life: their home.”

More broadly, she states that “the emergence of animal protection statutes in Quebec law reflects society and demonstrates that the legislator now recognizes the deep bond that develops between humans and their companion animals,” and that “jurisprudence must adapt to this new legal reality and align itself with it.”

“The Montreal SPCA welcomes this important victory before the Tribunal administratif du logement. We are relieved to know that the tenant in this case will not have to face the heartbreaking choice between keeping a member of their family and having a roof over their head,” said Sophie Gaillard, Director of Animal Advocacy and Legal and Government Affairs at the Montreal SPCA. “But beyond the specific facts of this case, this decision is a reminder that the law must adapt to the evolution of the values that shape our society, specifically when it comes to our relationship with animals. It also affirms the growing recognition of the central role companion animals play in our family and social lives.”

In its intervention, the Montreal SPCA argued, among other things, that the clause prohibiting animals in the tenant’s residential lease infringes the right to privacy set out in section 5 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to make fundamentally personal and private decisions without undue external influence. The SPCA also argued that the clause was abusive and unreasonable, particularly at a time of severe shortages of affordable housing, a situation that seriously undermines the balance of power between landlords and tenants.

Both arguments were accepted by administrative judge Guévremont, who specifies:

• “The choice to welcome an animal companion into one’s family is an essentially personal decision, motivated by intrinsically private considerations and carrying a multitude of consequences for a person’s intimate life and for the activities they carry out within their home. It is a choice that lies at the very heart of the organization of family life, that is: a decision about the composition of the family.”
• “In reality, Mr. Desjardins [the tenant] had no opportunity to negotiate this clause and therefore faced the heartbreaking choice of finding another home or abandoning their animals. In the context of a severe shortage of affordable housing, the ability to make this decision freely is even more illusory.”

In her decision, the judge also states that “a companion animal is a member of the family and the emotional bond between a person and the animal who shares their life can be extremely deep,” while recognizing the “largely sufficient” protection granted to landlords by several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec, as well as the restrictions on animal ownership imposed by municipal regulations.

“This decision rendered by the TAL is significant: it cannot be ignored and will certainly have an impact on other cases challenging the validity of no-pet clauses,” explained Marie-Claude St-Amant, partner at the firm Melançon Marceau Grenier Cohen, LLP, which represented the SPCA in this case. “It represents a first breach in TAL jurisprudence, which until now has generally considered clauses prohibiting animals to be valid, without examining the question of tenants’ fundamental rights.”

For more than a decade, the Montreal SPCA has been campaigning tirelessly to ban no-pet clauses in rental housing because of their devastating effects, both on animals and on Quebec families, more than half of which now include a companion animal. Indeed, difficulty finding housing is one of the main reasons animals are surrendered to shelters in Quebec. On average, nearly two animals per day are abandoned for this reason at the Montreal SPCA.

“This election year, the SPCA is also urging political parties to take a position on this issue,” added Me Gaillard. “Now that a tribunal has clearly established that no-pet clauses infringe on tenants’ fundamental rights, it is urgent for provincial political parties to make a firm commitment to ban these clauses, as Ontario has done since the 1990s and France since 1970.”

(Administrative judge Suzanne Guévremont’s quotes translated from French.)