June 05, 2003
At 6:30 a.m., Dusty was in no mood for surfing the Internet.
She went ahead and snoozed while I researched this issue
6:45 a.m.
I rolled over in bed this morning and stretched and Dusty shifted in her spot by my pillow and stretched, then we both listened to the 6:30 news on CBC. What I heard made me sit up in bed.
This is an excerpt from the web page of the Federation of Metro Tenants Association
- A major Toronto landlord is now charging rent to dogs. The Federation has obtained a lease used by Briar Lane Management that requires an extra monthly payment of $250 a month for apartments with dogs.
Pets are permitted in all Ontario apartments, but some tenants will have to pay $3000.00 a year for that right.
Starting rents are not regulated under Ontario’s ill advised Tenant Protection Act.
"This is a further exploitation of a bad Act" said Dan McIntyre, Program Co-Ordinator for the FMTA. "What’s next – added charges for having children?"
We will be urging any tenant to bring a case forward to have this charge disputed. Meanwhile, we will continue to call for a whole new Act and for fairness for tenants.
Pets are a good thing – exploitation by landlords is not.
We will be making the Government aware of this further bastardizing of their Act.(you can find this press release on the Adovacy and Action page)
Like many of the Ontario government's initiatives, the Ontario Tenant "Protection" act is a mixed bag: the act removed rent controls and allowed Landlords to raise rent each year, regardless of market conditions or the condition of the building they supposedly maintain. This is clearly a bad thing for tenants.
But the act also forbid landlords from prohibiting pets, including dogs and cats. In the past, in order to have a pet you literally had to be able to afford your own home - tenants were excluded from pet ownership by draconian leases that prohibited everything from dogs to goldfish. So many tenants are single people who live alone - pets provide needed companionship.
I was unable to have a dog for years. Now that I am a dog owner, I realise how much Dusty contributes to my quality of life and mental health (and physical health - all those walks!). I can't imagine life without her and I can't imagine having to give her up to the SPCA because I couldn't afford a 30% rent increase in order to keep her.
The press release makes an important point: Will tenants who have children be surcharged for each child they bear? A well-trained dog is FAR quieter and less destructive than your average young child. At any rate, people's choices should not be limited in this way.
Briar Lane Management is clearly charging this exploitive fee to get around the provision of the Tenant "Protection" Act that allows pets. This is unbelievably manipulative and completely unfair.
If you're a dog owner in Ontario, drop a note to your local politicians, to let them know that this little ploy by an unethical management company has not gone unnoticed.
1:00 p.m.
This issue was a hot topic at the dog park today. Everyone had questions about how it could affect them, how the landlord could get away with such a blatantly unfair policy (that so blatantly tries to bypass the Tenant "Protection" act). Below, is an excerpt from an email I sent to a dog-loving friend about the issue.
- This has been on CBC every hour all day. What do you bet that there are some dog lovers at the CBC who are keeping this on the radar? ;-) They're reaching a huge audience. If I were the landlord, I would be rethinking my position, if only for PR reasons.
I suppose you could get around this type of thing by not telling the landlord that you have a dog, but would that make your lease void if you signed a lease that specified that there is a charge for pets? I hate to lie, but if I did, and got caught, and said that the dog was visiting??! How is it enforeable after the fact?
I think your second idea, that Briar Lanes is trying to discourage people from having pets is right on base. Obviously, they're trying to make it cost-prohibitive to own a dog. I mean, what about cats? And birds? Why are dogs targeted here? I don't care how much wear-and-tear an average dog does to an apartment - I guarantee a human child does more, and $250 per month is *way* beyond any compensation for wear-and-tear in my opinion (and cats can be just as destructive!)
There are some interesting implications (as I'm sure you can imagine, this was a hot topic at the dog park this morning). If you renew your lease after a year, can the landlord write this into the new lease? Or only apply the fee to new tenants? What if you decline to sign a lease after a year and go 'month-to-month' (which is legal under the Tenant "Protection" act)? Can the landlord apply this fee if there is no lease involved?