This bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act to declare any lease provision or landlord rule that outright prohibits animals void, and to limit the Director of Residential Tenancies’ power to terminate a tenancy on the basis of an animal's presence, control, or behaviour. It adds a new subsection to section 8 and section 9A to neutralize blanket no-pet clauses and inserts a multi-part test into section 17A that narrows when eviction-and-vacate orders may be made.
The change matters because it shifts the legal default in Nova Scotia toward allowing tenants to keep animals, while preserving narrow eviction paths where an animal has demonstrably created substantial interference, caused a serious allergic reaction, or is inherently dangerous. That shift will affect lease drafting, dispute filings, adjudication practice, insurance assessments, and how landlords and tenants document incidents and evidence.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a statutory prohibition on lease terms and landlord rules that ban animals, and amends the Director’s termination authority so the Director may only evict over an animal when satisfied the tenant keeps the animal and one of three specified grounds applies (substantial interference, serious allergic reaction, or inherent dangerousness).
Who It Affects
Tenants who keep companion animals, landlords and property managers, the Director of Residential Tenancies (and staff who adjudicate applications), and insurers or building owners who set animal-related policies. It will also affect other tenants claiming disturbance or allergy harms.
Why It Matters
The law moves from allowing no-pet rules to requiring case-by-case adjudication on narrow statutory grounds, increasing evidentiary demands in disputes and reducing the effectiveness of blanket no-pet clauses as a risk-management tool for landlords.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts three targeted amendments into the Residential Tenancies Act. First, it adds a short, explicit provision that any lease term banning animals is void — tenants cannot be contractually denied animals by a clause in their written tenancy agreement.
Second, it makes a parallel change to landlord-imposed rules: a building rule that forbids animals is likewise void. Those two textual changes remove the legal bite from blanket no-pet language, but they do not create a free-for-all; they eliminate contractual or bylaw-based automatic prohibition.
The third and most consequential change alters the Director’s eviction power in section 17A. The director may no longer terminate a tenancy and order a tenant to vacate merely because an application alleges issues connected to an animal.
Instead, before ordering eviction the Director must be satisfied the tenant actually keeps the animal and that one of three narrow conditions holds: (a) past behaviour of an animal of that species has substantially interfered with reasonable enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or other tenants; (b) the presence of that species has caused a serious allergic reaction to the landlord or another tenant; or (c) the species or breed is inherently dangerous to landlord or tenants.Two follow-up subsections add a crucial individual-causation check. The Director cannot rely on the substantial-interference ground if satisfied that the tenant’s animal did not cause or contribute to the interference; similarly, the Director cannot rely on the allergic-reaction ground if satisfied the tenant’s animal did not cause or contribute to the allergy.
Together those provisions require the adjudicator to connect the complained-of harm to the tenant’s specific animal, not only to general concerns about a species or breed. The text leaves several operational questions open — how to prove “substantially interfered,” how to measure “serious allergic reaction,” and which evidentiary standard the Director will apply — so the amendment pushes many disputes into fact-focused hearings rather than allowing summary eviction on paper rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds section 8(1A) making any lease clause that prohibits animals void and unenforceable.
It adds section 9A(4) making landlord rules that prohibit animals void as well, neutralizing building rules that ban pets.
It amends section 17A to stop the Director from terminating tenancy for animal-related complaints unless the Director is satisfied the tenant keeps an animal and one of three statutory grounds applies: substantial interference, serious allergic reaction, or inherent dangerousness.
Subsections (3) and (4) create an individual-causation backstop — the Director cannot order eviction on the interference or allergy grounds if satisfied the tenant’s animal did not cause or contribute to the harm.
The “inherently dangerous” ground (17A(2)(c)) stands apart: the Director may rely on it without a prior-history showing of nuisance or an allergic reaction, subject to whatever factual proof the Director requires.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Voids lease clauses that ban animals
This clause inserts a new subsection to section 8 declaring that any lease provision forbidding animals in or about the premises is void. Practically, landlords cannot rely on printed or negotiated lease language to enforce a blanket no-pet policy; eviction or other remedies must be sought under the Director’s statutory powers and turn on the criteria set out elsewhere in the Act. The bill does not provide a transition rule, so existing leases that contain bans will remain written but unenforceable.
Voids landlord rules banning animals
This clause extends the voiding rule to landlord-promulgated rules (often used in multi-unit housing to implement property policies). A building rule that purports to prohibit animals is made void by statute, meaning property managers cannot enforce such rules through internal procedures; disputes will have to proceed to the Director under the statutory framework. The amendment targets administrative and bylaw-style bans rather than conduct-based discipline.
Narrows Director’s power to terminate a tenancy over animals
This is a multi-part operational change. The bill renumbers existing section 17A and inserts a new threshold: the Director must be satisfied the tenant keeps the animal and that one of three narrow grounds applies before ordering eviction. The grounds are (a) substantial interference tied to past behaviour of an animal of that species, (b) a serious allergic reaction caused or contributed to by the animal, or (c) an inherently dangerous species or breed. Two follow-up subsections require the Director to exclude reliance on (a) or (b) where the Director is satisfied the tenant’s animal did not cause or contribute to the harm. Those cross-checks push adjudication toward individualized proof and away from species-only or blanket exclusions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Tenants who keep companion animals — they can no longer be evicted solely because a lease or building rule bans pets; disputes must meet statutory eviction thresholds.
- Renters in multi-unit buildings — tenants who previously faced automatic no-pet enforcement gain a legal presumption in favour of keeping animals, reducing the use of blanket bans as an eviction basis.
- Advocacy and animal-welfare groups — the statutory change bolsters policy and legal arguments against categorical bans and supports advocacy for pet-inclusive housing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landlords and property managers — they lose a simple contractual tool for preventing pets and will face more contested adjudications and potential management costs (cleaning, noise mitigation, insurance implications).
- The Director of Residential Tenancies and tribunal staff — they will need to adjudicate more fact-intensive animal disputes, develop evidentiary practice, and possibly handle more hearings about medical causation and behaviour histories.
- Other tenants with allergies or safety concerns — tenants who suffer reactions or fear dangerous animals may face higher evidentiary burdens and temporal exposure while issues are resolved, and may seek interim remedies that the Act does not describe explicitly.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves the conflict between blanket no-pet bans and pet ownership by disallowing categorical prohibitions, but it leaves unresolved the practical trade-off between protecting pet-owning tenants’ access to housing and protecting other tenants’ health, safety and quiet enjoyment; the Act moves disputes from a preventive contract tool to fact-intensive adjudication, creating fairness and evidentiary challenges with no clear, administrable standard.
The amendments shift adjudicative weight from contractual terms to factual proof, but they leave key definitions and procedures unspecified. The statute does not define “substantially interfered,” “serious allergic reaction,” or “inherently dangerous,” nor does it specify the standard of proof the Director must apply (balance of probabilities, clear and convincing, or otherwise).
That absence will force the Director and parties to develop standards case-by-case, likely producing inconsistent interim outcomes and a wave of appeals that clarify limits only over time.
The interplay between species-level language and the causation backstops is awkward. Clause 3 speaks in places of “an animal of that species” while subsections (3) and (4) require the Director to exclude reliance where the tenant’s animal did not cause or contribute to harm.
That creates a two-step analytical structure — a species-level concern plus an individual-causation check — which could produce contradictory outcomes unless the tribunal frames a consistent interpretive approach. The bill is also silent on service animals, human-rights accommodations, municipal animal bylaws, and insurer conditions; those legal regimes will continue to govern parallel duties but may collide in practice, producing litigation over primacy and reasonable accommodation obligations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.