Dealing With Dangerous Dogs: Court Orders Tenancy Terminated, And Full Indemnity Costs

By Inderpreet Suri and John De Vellis

Some cases are dogs. But, sometimes, the dogs are the case.

Such was the case in a recent proceeding (MTCC 1260 v. Singh) in which Shibley Righton LLP’s lawyers, representing the condominium corporation, successfully obtained both a compliance order and a rare order of eviction against two tenants whose dogs ran roughshod- literally- over a condominium community in Toronto.

The evidence in the case was disturbing. The dogs in question were either Pitbulls or American bulldogs. The tenants let the dogs roam around the building corridors unsupervised and unleashed. The dogs lunged at other residents and dogs. There were numerous complaints about the dogs’ behaviour.  On one occasion, one of the dogs was waiting, alone and unleashed, when the elevator door opened. The dog immediately lunged at a small dog that had been travelling in the elevator with a resident. Both the resident and her dog were severely injured.

The City of Toronto issued a Dangerous Dog Order against one of the dogs. Among other things, the City order required the dog to be muzzled at all times when in the common areas of the building. The tenants did not comply.

In January 2022, the Condominium obtained a court order requiring the tenants to remove the dogs from the unit and the building.

The tenants did not initially remove the dogs. The Condominium obtained the assistance of the Sheriff and Animal Services to assist with the removal of the dogs. The Condominium later provided evidence that, when the Sheriff arrived, the tenants were belligerent and made threats against the Sheriff.  The tenants also threatened to bring additional dogs into the building.

The Condominium and the unit owner were forced to convene another hearing on February11, 2022 to ask that the tenants be evicted from the building.  The court refused to order an eviction at that time, but did find that the tenants were "irresponsible dog owners and incapable of managing pets in a manner suited for communal occupation and use of the common elements of the condominium". The court issued a new order not only requiring the dogs be removed but also stating the tenants were not permitted to keep any dogs in the unit without leave of the court.

Sadly, that was not the end of the saga. By early March 2022, the Condominium and the unit owner had evidence that there were still dogs in the unit. Another hearing was scheduled for March 11, 2022. The owner provided evidence that, during an inspection of the unit almost a month after the initial order (and after the Sheriff removed the dogs), the owner found pee pads, bowls of dog food and water in the unit, and dog feces on the unit's balcony. The Condominium also provided evidence from a resident residing below the tenants who found a large bag of dog excrement on her terrace, and a second bag full of dog excrement, days later, on a walkway near her terrace. The court accepted that the dogs were still in the unit. It also found that, "while it may be that anyone could have dropped a bag of dog excrement, there is no evidence that anyone else had a reason to save up and bag a large amount of dog excrement other than the tenants if they
are hiding their dogs."

Normally, eviction applications must be heard by the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction to hear most tenant-related disputes, including applications for eviction. However, the Condominium Act allows a court to terminate a tenancy if the tenants have breached a court's compliance order.

Still, evictions by courts for condominium compliance matters are extremely rare. Normally, tenants either comply or move out before further proceedings are necessary.  

In this case, however, the tenants' breaches were ongoing. The court found that the tenants had repeatedly breached the court’s order and were “ungovernable”. The court found that the tenants' actions amounted to "deliberate deception and deliberate violation of the statute". An eviction was the only reasonable remedy as the tenants had refused "to take the simplest of precautions, despite being ordered to do so by the City, and then deliberately [ignored] two orders of the court". The court was convinced that that "the tenants are unsuited for communal living and communal use of property. Moreover, there is no other remedy short of ordering the tenants to vacate the unit that will ameliorate the ongoing risk of injury to others or to enforce the condominium’s rules."

Interestingly, the court reviewed the amendments to section 134(4) of the Condominium Act. The amendments will, when proclaimed into force, permit the court to terminate a tenancy only if the tenants have breached section 117 (dangerous conditions) and pose a risk to health and safety, or have violated other compliance orders and are "unsuited for communal living" and "no other order will be adequate to enforce compliance". Though the amendments are not yet in force, the court found that, even if the more stringent test in the amended Act applied, they would have been met in this case: "The risk of injury under s. 117 (1) of the statute is enough. I would also find however that the tenants have shown themselves by word and deed to be unfit for communal living and communal use of property."

In all, the Condominium obtained three compliance orders. It also ultimately received a full indemnity costs order against the tenants and owner for $48,635.10.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) has jurisdiction over most pet disputes in condominiums. However, the Superior Court agreed to hear the matter (as opposed to deferring to the CAT) because there were allegations that the tenants' behaviour created a danger to others, contrary to section 117(1) of the Condominium Act. For the same reason, the court also agreed to hear both the initial and the follow up hearings on an urgent basis. The entire process took approximately three months to complete.

One of the major takeaways from this case is that owners should be careful with the tenants they choose to occupy their unit. In this case, the tenants caused the problems and despite the owner's cooperation, the owner was held liable for all legal costs incurred by the Condominium to remove the tenants from the unit. Another major takeaway is that instead of a CAT application, condominium corporations can commence Superior Court applications in relation to pet disputes as long as section 117(1) of the Condominium Act is engaged.