In Walpole v. Crisol (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal on the application of DOLA 3(1) ['Application of Occupiers’ Liability Act'].
Here the court notes that under the RTA a tenant may not be evicted solely for possessing an animal, in this case a dog:
[21] The evidence establishes that the Crisols were absentee landlords of the property where the dog owners resided. The dog’s owners only acquired Chestnut some time after they became the Crisols’ tenants. Under s. 14 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“the RTA”), the Crisols could not have prevented their tenants from keeping a dog on the rented property. ...
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
