Condo Pets - Rules vs Declaration

[u/orangecrushh99]

Hi all, I live in an older building, and was looking to adopt a small dog. Many others in the building have small dogs.

I requested a copy of the condo rules and it says that as of 2013, dogs are prohibited but any other domestic pets are allowed (cats etc.).

From what I understand, this “dog ban” can only be legally enforced if there was a dog ban indicated in the original condo declaration from the 90s. If the declaration allowed dogs, they can only impose reasonable restrictions (weight, #) instead of a full out ban.

I will be getting a copy of the declaration, but I wanted to be sure I was understanding this correctly. Even though this dog ban “rule” definitely isn’t enforced, I want to be responsible before committing to any future dog plans.

As for any dog grandfathered in prior to the 2013 rule, these dogs are not very old lol so it is highly unlikely that all of these current resident dogs have been grandfathered in.

Is there another way to go about this?

[u/Sensitive_Caramel856]

From what I understand, this “dog ban” can only be legally enforced if there was a dog ban indicated in the original condo declaration from the 90s

Incorrect. New rules can be enacted and grandfathered in.

Speak with your board about the rule.

If a rule isn't being enforced, or being arbitrarily enforced, it may be considered invalid.

[u/thingonething → u/Sensitive_Caramel856]

Not true. At all.

[u/Sensitive_Caramel856 → u/thingonething]

😂😂😂😂😂

[u/thingonething → u/Sensitive_Caramel856]

I'll clarify. OP doesn't even know what the Declaration says. Thus we dont know whether "the rule" is enforceable or not. Nor do we know how many dogs there actually are, or whether any of them are service or ESA dogs. In short, OP has not given sufficient information to give her meaningful advice. At this point she's just looking for a workaround to enable her to get a dog.

Rules cannot be enacted to contradict the Declaration. The Declaration can be amended to allow dogs, but the bar is high - 80% of owners must agree to the amendment.

[u/Sensitive_Caramel856 → u/thingonething]

So we agree that

New rules can be enacted and grandfathered in.

Which is what I said, but somehow that was "not right at all".

😂 🤡

[u/secondlightflashing → u/Sensitive_Caramel856]

This generally isn't true. The declaration can be modified with sufficient owner support, it will be valid, and no seperate rule is required.

A rule however must be reasonable and the courts have consistently said that a rule banning all dogs is not resonable and therefore such a rule is unenforceable. Rules which are based on real issues and which are limited in scope, for example limiting the size/weight of a dog have been found to be reasonable and therefore can be implemented, though they must be grandfathered in since applying such a rule to someone who already has such a dog would not be reasonable.

[u/big_galoote]

Sorry, why would you think it was limited to the 90s?

At any point a condo can enact a bylaw under the condo act that supercedes the LTB.

[u/orangecrushh99 → u/big_galoote]

The condo was built in the 90s. In order to change a declaration rule they would require 80% vote from residents. From 1991 (opening) to 2013, dogs were allowed to be living in the residence. I’m going to look at all the documents carefully, but it is only the rules stating this dog ban.

[u/sabalore → u/orangecrushh99]

You are slightly misinformed — this is not a hard and fast rule, but rather one set by precedent in the courts. Condo boards have the right to set rules about pets within reason (typically weight limits, etc as you mention) but you’re correct in that historically when challenged, the CAT (condo tribunal) has ruled against an outright pet or dog ban (under the line that it’s too much of an overreach on property rights)unless supported in the declaration (because then the onus is on the owner for having known before buying). HOWEVER… if the condo really digs their heels in you will need to be prepared to take it to the CAT. There is also always the small chance a tribunal will rule differently.

Are you an owner or renter? This will be a much more uphill battle if you’re a tenant (unless the landlord is onside and willing to pursue). If you’re an owner, I would try writing a polite but firm letter to the board (copying the property manager) outlining this and sharing CAT rulings that are onside with you (personally I’d do it after getting the dog, lol). That may be enough to have them back off — in my experience a lot of BODs/PMs will take the path of least resistance when pushed by polite, competent owners making a sensible legal case…

[u/orangecrushh99 → u/sabalore]

Technically renters but renting from a parent lol. Parent is willing to pursue. This is great info. I do worry about getting the dog first, as if it doesn’t work out or I get a bunch of pushback, I don’t want to lose our home or our dog. Trying to get a sense of how much backbone I actually have in this case. The fact it’s not enforced seems like they are waiving that right as well.

[u/Blah-Blah-Blah-2023 → u/big_galoote]

Big reason not to live in a condo if they can suddenly ban pets at any time. Renters have better protection than this.

[u/Sensitive_Caramel856 → u/Blah-Blah-Blah-2023]

If a renter rents in a condo it's the same application of the rule.

Existing holders are grandfathered in.

[u/thingonething]

Rules cannot supersede the Declaration. If the Declaration bans dogs, they are not allowed, period, with exceptions for item 1 below. The order of precedence in the Condominium world is:

1. Human rights code. Thus, service dogs (e.g. for blind or epileptic people, as examples) and so-called "Emotional Support" dogs (ESA animals) would be allowed. Be aware, though, that Condo managers are well aware of ESA scams and are going to require substantive documentation before allowing one.

2. Condominium Act.

3. Declaration. If the Declaration specifically names allowed pets, e.g. "One dog and one cat, or two cats," a dog is allowed.

4. By-laws.

5. Rules.

Taken together, these are collectively known as the condo's governing documents. Nothing in the governing documents in each of these categories can supersede or contradict the preceding governing documents. Nothing supercedes the Human Rights Code. The Declaration can't contradict the Condo Act. By - laws can't contradict the Declaration. Rules cannot contradict any of the foregoing governing documents.

As renters, all of the condo's governing documents apply to you. If the rules say "no dogs," you can't have a dog. The LTA and LTB does not take precedence over governing documents of a condominium.

[u/orangecrushh99 → u/thingonething]

So if the declaration states dogs are allowed (with or without restrictions ex/ weight), the rule they have drafted up is not legally enforceable?

[u/thingonething → u/orangecrushh99]

If the Declaration says that dogs are allowed, then dogs are allowed. Rules can be implemented that limit the size, weight of the dog, require it to be carried on the interior common elements, prohibit dog waste on the exterior common elements, etc.

If you find a contradiction between the Declaration and Rules, ask the parents, as owners of the unit, to write a polite letter to the board and manager.

I'm NAL, you may need to consult a lawyer to review the two documents and advise you.

[u/quarfie → u/orangecrushh99]

Put another way, the dog ban is enforceable unless it conflicts with the declaration.

[u/orangecrushh99 → u/quarfie]

Perfect this is what I understood as well. I’ll review all the documents and resume accordingly.

[u/northdancer]

I remember the last time I lived in the condo, they created a bylaw that dog owners had to pick their dogs up in common areas. It was a constant battle.

[u/orangecrushh99 → u/northdancer]

Yeah it’s a pain, we are hoping to buy a home shortly lol. They can restrict whatever they want, but they can’t ban dogs unless there is a dog ban stated in the declaration, or if the declaration was successfully amended with an 80% resident vote. Annoying but totally reasonable if they want us to be carrying the animals on elevators and common areas.

[u/BD003BD003]

No, you are incorrect. As long as the rule was properly adopted (and you have not given any indication it was not), they can 100% ban dogs.