Bill 494 replaces article 1900 of the Civil Code of Québec to add that any lease clause tending to prohibit the presence of a “companion animal” is without effect. The bill ties the term to the Animal Welfare and Safety Act and directs the government to remove any now-invalid animal-prohibition language from mandatory lease forms within 30 days of the act coming into force.
The change is immediate and retroactive: the bill applies to leases already in effect. That removes the legal force of blanket no-pet clauses in Quebec’s residential leases and shifts the practical debate from contract wording to how landlords, insurers, co-owners and tribunals will manage animal-related risks and accommodations going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new third ground in article 1900 of the Civil Code, declaring clauses that prohibit companion animals to be without effect. It references the definition of “companion animal” in the provincial Animal Welfare and Safety Act and requires the government to purge lapsed prohibitions from mandatory lease forms within 30 days of assent.
Who It Affects
Private lessors, property managers, co-ownership corporations, insurers, and tenants who keep or wish to keep companion animals (as defined by the Animal Welfare and Safety Act) are directly affected. The provincial administration that maintains mandatory lease templates must change forms and guidance quickly.
Why It Matters
The bill transforms the default legal position on pets in rented housing across Quebec: blanket bans in standard lease clauses will no longer be enforceable. Landlords will need to adopt other tools (case-by-case conditions, written permissions, or behavioural rules) to manage animals, and disputes will shift into tribunals and courts to define permissible limits.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 494 rewrites one line of the Civil Code but changes the ground rules for pets in rental housing. It adds a new paragraph to article 1900 finding that any clause in a residential lease that tends to prohibit a companion animal is without legal effect.
That means if a lease says “no pets” or has language that operates to prevent a tenant from keeping a companion animal, that clause is null and cannot be relied on to evict or penalize a tenant.
The bill does not create a separate statutory right to bring an animal into any building regardless of circumstances; instead it eliminates contractual clauses that act as blanket prohibitions. The act refers to the Animal Welfare and Safety Act for the meaning of “companion animal,” so what counts as a protected animal depends on that existing statutory definition rather than a new definition in the Civil Code.Administratively, the government must remove now-invalid prohibitory language from the mandatory lease templates specified in the Regulation respecting mandatory lease forms and particulars of a notice to a new lessee (schedules 2 to 5) within 30 days of assent.
The bill also contains a transitional clause making the change applicable to leases already in effect on the coming-into-force date, so tenants under existing “no pets” clauses can invoke the provision immediately.The bill leaves enforcement and remedial mechanisms to existing civil and administrative channels: it does not create a new penalty scheme or specific procedural route for disputes over animals. Practically, landlords will have to rely on the broader regime of obligations and remedies in the Civil Code — and on case law — to address damage, nuisance, health or safety concerns caused by animals.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces article 1900 of the Civil Code to add that clauses that prohibit the presence of a companion animal are without effect.
“Companion animal” is defined by cross-reference to section 1 of the provincial Animal Welfare and Safety Act (chapter B-3.1), not within the Civil Code amendment itself.
The government must, by regulation not later than 30 days after assent, remove any now-invalid animal-prohibition references from mandatory lease forms referenced in schedules 2–5 of Regulation R-15.01, r. 3.
A transitional provision makes the amendment apply to leases already in effect on the law’s coming-into-force date — the change is retroactive to existing tenancies.
The bill does not add new remedies, fines, or an enforcement mechanism specific to animal disputes; it relies on existing civil remedies and tribunal processes to resolve conflicts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds companion-animal prohibition to list of void clauses
This provision substitutes a new text for article 1900. The practical effect is categorical: any lease clause that tends to prohibit the presence of a companion animal is declared without effect alongside other void clauses (e.g., clauses that improperly limit lessor liability). For landlords and drafters this changes how lease wording must be approached: blanket prohibitions will not survive judicial scrutiny and cannot be used as the contractual basis for enforcement action.
Imports the Animal Welfare and Safety Act definition of companion animal
Rather than defining “companion animal” within the Civil Code, the bill adopts the existing statutory definition in chapter B-3.1. That choice delegates boundary-drawing (what animals count) to the other statute and to any case law interpreting it. It also creates dependence: if the Animal Welfare and Safety Act definition is narrow or broad, article 1900’s reach will follow.
Requires prompt administrative updates to mandatory lease forms
The government must, by regulation not later than 30 days after assent, remove lapsed prohibitory language from the mandatory lease templates set out in schedules 2–5 of the Regulation respecting mandatory lease forms (R-15.01, r. 3). This is an operational step to align standardized forms with the new legal position; it places a short procedural deadline on the administration responsible for those templates.
Applies the change to existing leases
The transitional clause expressly makes the amendment applicable to leases already in force at commencement. That retroactivity means tenants with existing “no-pet” clauses can assert the bill’s protection immediately, raising potential short-term disputes where landlords relied on previously binding clause language.
Standard commencement framework with inserted date of assent
The bill comes into force on the date of assent (the text leaves a blank to insert that date). Practically, the regulatory 30-day clock and the transitional effect both hinge on that assent date.
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 regain the ability to keep animals even where their lease contains a blanket prohibition, provided the animal meets the statutory definition referenced by the bill.
- Individuals who rely on non‑contractual animal companionship (e.g., emotional support or family pets) — They obtain practical protection against automatic eviction or lease penalties tied solely to a no‑pet clause, subject to the scope of the Animal Welfare and Safety Act definition.
- Animal welfare groups and the pet services sector — Reduced contractual barriers to pet ownership in rentals may increase demand for adoption, veterinary care and related services across rental markets.
- Tenants’ rights advocates and legal clinics — The change creates new avenues for contesting evictions and for advising tenants about asserting their rights under revised lease law.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private lessors and property managers — They lose the enforcement tool of blanket no‑pet clauses and must manage behavioural risks through individualized permissions, rules, inspections, or termination for breach based on conduct rather than an absolute ban.
- Insurers and surety providers — Removing contractual bans could increase underwriting exposure to animal-related damage or liability, prompting higher premiums or new policy exclusions.
- Condominium corporations and co-ownership boards — Where building by‑laws or co-ownership rules restrict animals, tension may arise between a tenant’s lease rights and co-ownership governance, producing compliance costs and litigation risk.
- Municipal and provincial administrators who maintain mandatory forms — They must update templates and guidance within the 30‑day regulatory window, allocating staff time and legal review resources to ensure consistency.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing tenant access to companion animals against landlords’ property and risk‑management interests: the bill stops landlords from using blanket contractual bans to keep animals out, but it does not give landlords clear, uniform alternative tools to manage damage, nuisance, insurance and co‑occupant safety — leaving courts and regulators to reconcile competing rights on a case‑by‑case basis.
The bill eliminates contractual bans but leaves many practical questions unanswered. First, reliance on the Animal Welfare and Safety Act to define “companion animal” imports whatever ambiguities or exclusions that statute contains; disputes over whether a particular animal qualifies will turn on that separate text and on tribunal interpretations.
Second, the amendment removes a contractual ground for eviction but does not create an affirmative right to keep animals without limit: landlords can still pursue remedies for nuisance, damage or other breaches of the lease, but those remedies require proof of harmful conduct rather than the mere presence of an animal.
The retroactive application to existing leases raises transitional frictions. Landlords who relied on “no pets” language may confront immediate tenant claims, which could produce a spike in applications to rental tribunals and courts seeking clarifying rulings about permissible restrictions (size, number, sanitation requirements) and permissible enforcement tools.
The bill also sidesteps related legal layers: condominium by‑laws, building safety and public health rules, and insurers’ policy terms may still restrict or condition the presence of animals, producing legal conflicts the bill does not resolve. Finally, the bill imposes an administrative duty to amend mandatory lease forms quickly but does not allocate resources or set a mechanism to handle disputes arising during that 30‑day window.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.