by Avrom Charach
In the spring of 2005, tenants of a PPMA member managed property applied to have the “No Pets” clause signed by them declared in violation of section 11(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) which defines when a rule is reasonable. The Residential Tenancies Branch (RTB) ruled in favour of the landlord and the tenants appealed. The Residential Tenancies Commission held an appeal hearing and issued Decision W2005-002452 in favour of the landlord. This is a landmark decision. We should all review it and take heed of its principles in developing and implementing rules for residents.
The tenant contended it was not fair for a landlord to set a No Pets rule without investigating each tenant and pet individually and thus their rule was unreasonable. They further stated that cats should not be banned as a group because they do not, by their nature, cause damage. They suggested the burden of proof in this case be on the landlord. The landlord contended that the burden of proof was on the tenant since they are disputing the rule. The RTC cited a 1995 British Columbia Supreme Court Decision (B.C.J. No 722) which places the burden of proof of reasonableness of a rule on the landlord. While the landlord suggested that BC has different tenancy legislation and thus its decision does not apply; the panel still placed the burden of proof on the landlord.
In proving their case the landlord showed that their rule applied equally across thousands of apartment units. They suggested it would be cost prohibitive to look at each pet but that they do allow some “contained creatures” (i.e. goldfish in a bowl). In regard to potential harm the landlord cited proven cases of pet (related) damage in their properties and of problems caused by pet borne allergens and fur clogging ventilation systems.
In rendering their decision the panel provided definitions of reasonable from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edition) and Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed. (1976) and applied them to the evidence. The panel came to the conclusion that the landlord’s rule is fair and reasonable in its logic and application. They further concluded it would be unreasonable to expect a landlord to go the cost of checking each tenant and pet.
We can learn from this decision that it is important to ensure rules are reasonable and are applied equally. It is also important to prepare adequately for matters before the RTB. We see here how other rulings, legislation and dictionaries were all useful tools.
Avrom Charach, CGA
PPMA Vice President
Return to PPMA Articles