The Association of Quebec Landlords aims to promote harmonious relations between landlords and tenants. The APQ is entirely favorable, if the Committee on Health and Social Services deems it necessary, to the adoption of a law allowing a disabled person to be accompanied by his/her service dog everywhere, including at home. This would, as is the case in other provinces of Canada, allow to clarify a situation already contrary to the Charter, but which deserves to be clarified to avoid situations currently experienced by people living with disabilities. However, as discussed in the Committee, a campaign to raise awareness among owners could help to better understand the protection already offered by the Charter and prevent the adoption of a new law.
As a result of the foregoing, the Association of Quebec Landlords submitted to the Quebec National Assembly the following recommendations:
The Association of Quebec Landlords believes that the requirement for the person who requires a guide dog or assistance dog is justified, to have a legal support document proving that the dog in question is a recognized guide dog or assistance dog and that the situation requires the presence of said dog. In fact, one must make sure to clarify what types of disability can be mitigated by using a dog. In the Acts mentioned in Alberta and British Columbia, the dog in question must have been trained by an accredited school. Based on the review of these laws, the Government could then issue an identification card for the users of the qualified dogs and the presence of this card would prove the qualification for the application of the law proposed in the petition, that is to say that we are in the presence of a person whose disability can be overcome with the aid of a dog and that the dog comes from an accredited school. This card should be presented as well by a person wishing to rent an apartment with his guide dog or assistance dog as by a person who already has a housing but who would be newly using this type of dog. We believe in the lawful obligation by the tenant to give notice to the owner to advise him/her of this new situation and to present evidence of this.
However, the Owners Association believes that the new law should not apply to puppies in training, for the sake of fairness to those who can not have a dog in virtue of a regulation of the building, for example because they do not have a handicap to overcome. This law should apply only when necessary for people living with disabilities only.
The Homeowners Association wanted to issue a caveat to the Committee on Health and Social Services concerning an obligation of the owner in the law to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the premises for all of its tenants. One should thus be able to restrict the possible drawbacks to the presence of a dog in a building that prohibits animals for different reasons. The APQ wishes to bring to your attention the importance, for some tenants or for some landlords of dwellings held in co-ownership, of the choice of a building without animals, whether for reasons of allergies or environmental over-sensitivities, in the same way that we can choose a smoke-free building. The Association believes that it is not enough to use discrimination against people who have to live in the presence of a dog to overcome a handicap, but wishes to make the Committee on Health and Social Services aware of the difficulty which an owner of a housing may face in a situation where a service dog arrives in a building chosen for its lack of a dog by a severely allergic person.
On the other hand, one must think about the possible disadvantages related to the presence of a dog that can affect all of the other tenants as well as the owner. Regardless of whether or not a person lives with a disability, an animal may be more disturbing if it is less well maintained: natural needs outside or inside, barking, breakage inside the apartment. The maintenance of a housing in which an animal lives may be more demanding. We believe that these circumstances may justify a security deposit to the owner, which should obviously apply to all of the tenants.
More generally, as some tenants are negligent in maintaining their homes, even despite the lack of bad faith, the Association saw fit to reiterate its request for safety deposits for all of the tenants. We believe that the fact of not having a procedure for the filing of a reasonable amount which could serve for damages suffered by the owner as a deposit, harms owners of rental housing and does not raise awareness of tenants to negative actions.
We will keep you informed of developments.
As a result of the foregoing, the Association of Quebec Landlords submitted to the Quebec National Assembly the following recommendations:
The Association of Quebec Landlords believes that the requirement for the person who requires a guide dog or assistance dog is justified, to have a legal support document proving that the dog in question is a recognized guide dog or assistance dog and that the situation requires the presence of said dog. In fact, one must make sure to clarify what types of disability can be mitigated by using a dog. In the Acts mentioned in Alberta and British Columbia, the dog in question must have been trained by an accredited school. Based on the review of these laws, the Government could then issue an identification card for the users of the qualified dogs and the presence of this card would prove the qualification for the application of the law proposed in the petition, that is to say that we are in the presence of a person whose disability can be overcome with the aid of a dog and that the dog comes from an accredited school. This card should be presented as well by a person wishing to rent an apartment with his guide dog or assistance dog as by a person who already has a housing but who would be newly using this type of dog. We believe in the lawful obligation by the tenant to give notice to the owner to advise him/her of this new situation and to present evidence of this.
However, the Owners Association believes that the new law should not apply to puppies in training, for the sake of fairness to those who can not have a dog in virtue of a regulation of the building, for example because they do not have a handicap to overcome. This law should apply only when necessary for people living with disabilities only.
The Homeowners Association wanted to issue a caveat to the Committee on Health and Social Services concerning an obligation of the owner in the law to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the premises for all of its tenants. One should thus be able to restrict the possible drawbacks to the presence of a dog in a building that prohibits animals for different reasons. The APQ wishes to bring to your attention the importance, for some tenants or for some landlords of dwellings held in co-ownership, of the choice of a building without animals, whether for reasons of allergies or environmental over-sensitivities, in the same way that we can choose a smoke-free building. The Association believes that it is not enough to use discrimination against people who have to live in the presence of a dog to overcome a handicap, but wishes to make the Committee on Health and Social Services aware of the difficulty which an owner of a housing may face in a situation where a service dog arrives in a building chosen for its lack of a dog by a severely allergic person.
On the other hand, one must think about the possible disadvantages related to the presence of a dog that can affect all of the other tenants as well as the owner. Regardless of whether or not a person lives with a disability, an animal may be more disturbing if it is less well maintained: natural needs outside or inside, barking, breakage inside the apartment. The maintenance of a housing in which an animal lives may be more demanding. We believe that these circumstances may justify a security deposit to the owner, which should obviously apply to all of the tenants.
More generally, as some tenants are negligent in maintaining their homes, even despite the lack of bad faith, the Association saw fit to reiterate its request for safety deposits for all of the tenants. We believe that the fact of not having a procedure for the filing of a reasonable amount which could serve for damages suffered by the owner as a deposit, harms owners of rental housing and does not raise awareness of tenants to negative actions.
We will keep you informed of developments.