Landlord/Tenant question...

[dt_toronto_geek]

In the early 90's I learned that the "no pets" clause in a lease means nothing as the Landlord Tenant Act supersedes the no pets clause for rental units in the province of Ontario. Prior to getting my first Labrador Retriever in 1994 I spoke to the Property Manager (who I was very friendly with) where I was living and she herself admitted that the clause means nothing. I told her I was thinking about getting a Lab to see what she had to say and she went on about how she loves Labs blah, blah, blah and said she wanted to be the first to meet the puppy when I bring her home, and she was. In the years since I've moved several times and my most recent lease still has a "no pets" clause ("revised 2006") yet when I stop by the management office to visit, fill out a work order etc. all staff are always ready to offer up a dog treat which they keep stocked in a jar. It bewilders me as to why the no pets clause still shows up in leases.

Finally, I have a friend from England who comes over each year and spends the summer (5-8 weeks). Before he arrived the first time I advised the office that I had a friend staying for whatever amount of time it was that summer so that in case of an emergency (fire or whatever) they knew that there were three people and a dog in this suite. They asked me to drop a brief note and said something like they'd clip it to some list that they keep. I do that each time before he arrives and no one blinks an eye.

 

[LordWanker]

Indeed. Not sure what difference that makes. He knew as well as anyone that the landlord has zero right to request no pets unless there is one of the issues mentioned earlier in this post at the residence, so why put yourself at a disadvantage by mentioning it?

LordWanker - the trailer does not cross over into the landlord's half of the garage and the lease does state he's entitled to 50% of the garage, so the landlord was a total dick IMO to complain about it. The other tenant is the guy who owns the cat, he's actually a police officer. His logic is that if a landlord cannot deny you tenancy for it, why mention it when you're applying? Otherwise another tenant may be unfairly selected over you. There are no allergy concerns here.

You're correct that the landlord should have been aware of the invalid No Pets clause and it is something he will need to deal with. He obviously knew your friend was a cop and trusted him at that point in complying and mutually agreeing with the conditions of the signed lease. Your friend deliberately chose not to disclose his feline ownership, even though he had the backing of the law, out of some irrational fear of not getting this unit because of the cat? Why wasn't he upfront about it to begin with "to discuss things in a friendly and polite way " like dt_toronto_geek.

No wonder the landlord is being difficult. Again a hard lesson for him.

 

[wonderboy416]

No wonder the landlord is being difficult. Again a hard lesson for him.

Amazingly you side with the person who has NO respect for the law or the rights of citizens. I have learned they've complained about numerous other things as well before I was here that are just absurd.

Anyway, talked it over with the roommates, we're not doing anything - including talking to him about it. It seems the conditions of a residential tenancy agreements are almost always useless and never held up as for the most part they're contrary to what's in the landlord/tenant act. He'll be happy to know I just enrolled into a course at UofT which will no doubt extend my stay here

 

[LordWanker]

Amazingly you side with the person who has NO respect for the law or the rights of citizens. I have learned they've complained about numerous other things as well before I was here that are just absurd.

Anyway, talked it over with the roommates, we're not doing anything - including talking to him about it. It seems the conditions of a residential tenancy agreements are almost always useless and never held up as for the most part they're contrary to what's in the landlord/tenant act. He'll be happy to know I just enrolled into a course at UofT which will no doubt extend my stay here

Never said nor implied that I sided with him. The further this thread goes, the more details are revealed that both sides are equally as guilty in being disrespectful of each other.

 

[Hank]

I completely agree that he should not have to disclose that he had a cat or that he was thinking of getting a cat. I also think that it's a perfectly rational fear that some other tenant might be picked over a tenant with a cat when the lease contains an (invalid) clause prohibiting cats.

If the lease had a clause prohibiting homosexuals from renting a unit, would it be only fair for a potential renter to disclose that he's gay before signing the lease, even if he knows that it's a completely invalid clause? Of course not.

Landlords that put this sort of stuff in leases despite knowing that it's invalid are just trying to prey on people who aren't aware of their rights, and I can't believe that anyone would support this kind of behavior.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I wanted to add this statement: the law can never substitute for reasonable dealings between reasonable people. The law should be used as a guideline of conduct. When it is wielded as a club it benefits no one but lawyers. Lawyers care more about process than resolution.

I've also noted that people tend to surround themselves with like-minded individuals. Without taking sides wonderboy, I wonder if you recognize that it seems you and your friends share a lot of personality behaviours in common with their landlord? The relationship is in conflict because it is viewed as mutually exploitive instead of mutually benefitial.

 

[LordWanker]

Well done TrickyRicky for elegantly ending this discussion.

Cheers.

 

[wonderboy416]

I wanted to add this statement: the law can never substitute for reasonable dealings between reasonable people. The law should be used as a guideline of conduct. When it is wielded as a club it benefits no one but lawyers. Lawyers care more about process than resolution.

I couldn't disagree more. If two persons have a disagreement and the resolve favours the person whose side the law doesn't favour then how is that fair at all? If people are decent, honest and law-abiding there should be very little need for conflict. It's when someone sees it fit to abuse their power (and the law) that such problems as this one can blow up.

Rights of individual citizens in all cases need to be guarded, no one should be able to rationalize violating someones rights under the guise of doing it amicably.

 

[gristle]

I wanted to add this statement: the law can never substitute for reasonable dealings between reasonable people. The law should be used as a guideline of conduct. When it is wielded as a club it benefits no one but lawyers. Lawyers care more about process than resolution.

I guess its still fashionable to slag lawyers, but to answer the statement: it all depends on the lawyer, the specific process or the resolution being pursued. The law is not just a guideline for conduct, it typically provides clear distinctions of when an illegal action has taken place. The law does not say "be nice." If defines when "not being nice' goes onto being a threat, an assault or worse.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And one wonders why rental units are so hard to find these days. Whatever.....

When I was renting back in the 1990s I was the perfect tenant. I didn't even put up any pictures because the owners had just painted and I didn't have the heart to poke holes in the drywall. Cats were allowed, but they had to be indoor cats. Well, my cat got outdoors and brought fleas into the place, and I paid out of my pocket to have PCO spray the carpets so as not to inconvenience the owners. I shoveled the snow, kept the place clean, always paid my rent on time, never played loud music. You wouldn't have even known I was there. And why did I do all this... because I was grateful that someone would allow me to live in their property for at the time a tiny fee, $540 a month for a great basement apartment. It seems that tenants today are arses.

I am looking to buy some rental property in the near future, but would only buy commercial real estate for rent. At least with commercial you expect to have to rebuild between tenants, you don't have the Landlord-Tenant Act busting your nuts, and you can evict a layabout in a weekend.

 

[Kenny]

It's his home, he rented it to two people, not three.

Actually the law is on the tenants side. I hope to never get a renter like you.

+1

Just because you can, by law, break your agreements doesn't mean you should break the contract whenever you feel like it.

 

[wonderboy416]

Just because you can, by law, break your agreements doesn't mean you should break the contract whenever you feel like it.

But when said agreements hold no weight in a court of law it is unfair to expect anyone to be bound by them regardless.

I could agree to pay half for some illegal drugs now, and then the other half later.

Good luck trying to collect my second payment through the legal system, just because you can agree to something doesn't mean you should either...
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for being a shitty landlord and asking for things you're not entitled to.

 

[AGTO]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for being a shitty landlord and asking for things you're not entitled to.

This applies to you and your cop friend as well. I'm guessing you're both ignorant of the building and fire codes that restrict the number of occupants in a dwelling unit.

 

[TrickyRicky]

"I guess its still fashionable to slag lawyers"

Gristle, not only is it still fashionable to slag lawyers, it is great sport too! Especially when they are your friends and relatives!

Look, I'm glad the law is there. I'm glad lawyers are there to interpret this law. However, law, like any profession requires a person to filter the world through a specific niche perspective. Even if you want and even love to view the world in this fashion it is still important to understand its inherent strengths and weaknesses. I would love to point some of these out but I think it's too much of a tangent to the discussion.

The point is that I think the law should exist as a guideline and boundary condition to deal with disputes should they arise. When the law becomes the objective or the point, suddenly every interaction becomes a dispute and a problem. The objective or point should be for every interaction to be or be perceived (there is really very little distinction between the two) by all parties to be mutually benefitial.

 

[wonderboy416]

This applies to you and your cop friend as well. I'm guessing you're both ignorant of the building and fire codes that restrict the number of occupants in a dwelling unit.

Yes, because 3 people, 1 house cat and possibly a few spiders in a 1400 sq foot 3 bedroom unit exceeds the maximum number of occupants allowed as per current fire codes

Please come again