End Blanket No-Pet Rules

Summary#

This bill changes Nova Scotia’s Residential Tenancies Act to end blanket “no‑pet” rules in rentals. It also sets clear, limited reasons when a tenant can be evicted because of an animal.

• Any clause in a lease that bans animals is void (not enforceable).
• Any building or landlord rule that bans animals is also void.
• The Director of Residential Tenancies (the official who decides rental disputes) cannot end a tenancy over an animal unless specific harms are proven.
• Eviction related to an animal is only allowed if there is:
  • substantial interference with others’ reasonable enjoyment,
  • a serious allergic reaction,
  • or an animal that is inherently dangerous.
• The Director must be satisfied the tenant actually keeps the animal, and must not evict if the tenant’s own animal did not cause or add to the problem.

What it means for you#

• Tenants

  • You can keep a pet even if your lease or building rules say “no pets.” Those bans no longer apply.
  • You can still be evicted over an animal, but only if the decision‑maker is convinced that:
    • the animal’s presence or behaviour causes a big, ongoing disturbance,
    • someone suffers a serious allergic reaction tied to the species and your animal contributed to it, or
    • the species or breed is inherently dangerous.
  • If your pet did not cause or add to the disturbance or allergy, the Director must not evict you on that basis.

• Landlords and Property Managers

  • You cannot enforce lease terms or house rules that ban animals outright.
  • You may still apply to end a tenancy if there are serious, proven problems linked to an animal (major disturbance, serious allergy reaction, or inherent danger).
  • The bill targets total bans. It does not speak to other pet‑related conditions (like cleaning up after pets or paying for damage).

• Other Tenants in the Building

  • If a neighbour’s animal seriously disrupts your use of your home, or if you have a serious allergy tied to that animal’s species and the neighbour’s animal contributes to it, that can be grounds for action.
  • Animals that are inherently dangerous can be a basis to remove the animal or end a tenancy.

Expenses#

Estimated annual cost: No publicly available information.

• The bill changes tenant and landlord rights. Any government cost would likely relate to handling applications and disputes, but no estimate is provided.

Proponents' View#

• Ends blanket “no‑pet” policies, giving renters more choice and reducing pet surrenders to shelters.
• Sets fair, clear limits so only serious, proven problems with animals can lead to eviction.
• Protects people with allergies and safety concerns by keeping strong grounds to act when needed.
• Brings rules in line with how people live today, recognizing pets as part of many households.
• Reduces conflict by laying out what evidence is needed before ending someone’s housing over a pet.

Opponents' View#

• Landlords may face more risks of property damage, noise, and complaints, with fewer tools to prevent them.
• Buildings with shared air systems may struggle to protect tenants with severe allergies.
• “Inherently dangerous” and “substantial interference” can be hard to judge, which could mean more disputes and hearings.
• Insurance, cleaning, and maintenance costs might rise, and some landlords may try to pass costs on through higher rents or stricter screening.
• Smaller landlords may find enforcement and dispute processes more burdensome without the option of a no‑pet rule.