Yes No Share to Facebook
Liability of Landlord for Animals of Tenant: Injuries or Damage or Other Harm Caused to Third Party Persons
Question: How can landlords minimize their liability when tenants own animals?
Answer: Landlords must understand their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the premises in a good state of repair, including the fencing that secures animals on the property. Failing to do so could lead to liability, as seen in the Youssef case, where negligent fence maintenance resulted in an incident that caused injury. Zofa Legal offers guidance for landlords to help navigate these responsibilities effectively and mitigate legal risks.
Landlord Liability for Tenant Animals
It may seem surprising that a landlord could be sued and become liable for injuries or damages caused by the pets or animals which are owned by a tenant; however, the situation has occurred; and while unfortunate for the landlord, the case for liability against the landlord involved a relatively straightforward application of the law and common principles.
The Law
As an actual example, consider the case of Youssef v. Redi-Mix Limited, 2018 ONSC 6409 (upheld by Court of Appeal and leave for appeal to the Supreme Court denied). What happened within the Youssef case involved Redi-Mix as the property owner and thus landlord of rural premises rented to a tenant. The tenant, who owned donkeys, was keeping the donkeys upon the rented property and this was known to Redi-Mix. Additionally, Redi-Mix was aware that the tenant was grazing the donkeys upon fenced fields at the rented property. Despite knowing these details, Redi-Mix lacked inspection and repair procedures for the the fences. Subsequently, Mr. Youssef, who was riding a motorcycle on a nearby road, struck a donkey that had escaped through the fence that was improperly maintained by Redi-Mix. Mr. Youssef brought a lawsuit against Redi-Mix and was successful. In determining liability against Redi-Mix, the court explained:
[44] I am satisfied that the tenant Mark Burnfield was negligent in allowing the mules to wander from the property onto Winchester Road by means of his failure to secure the gate or fence along the side of the property. By the time the investigating officer arrived the donkeys had congregated near this fence and the officer, with simple human force, was able to pry open the gate or fence and the donkeys returned to the field. Mr. Burnfield has not disputed the claims against him and has been noted in default with respect to the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s third party claim.
[45] I am also satisfied that the defendant Redi-Mix was negligent with respect to its duties and obligations as a residential landlord of rural property. The following points assist me in drawing that conclusion:
• Redi-Mix purchased this residential rural property with existing fences.
• Redi-Mix leased this property to Mr. Burnfield in 2006 with the knowledge that he had domestic animals there.
• The accident happened approximately three years after the lease was entered into but Redi-Mix had no policy or procedure in place to inspect or repair the fences knowing it was their obligation to do so. The controller Carmen Kulesza had no knowledge of any inspection of fences. Dominic Suppa, the chief financial officer, indicated he had never inspected the fence. His only knowledge about fencing came from information provided to him by Mr. Lamanna. Mr. Lamanna made several visits to the property over the years. One such visit was to repair a certain area of fence. The other visits were unrelated to fencing. Mr. Lamanna was unsure whether his last inspection was before or after the accident.
• The Residential Tenancies Act sets out that landlords are responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex in a good state of repair.
[46] I am satisfied that the record before me provides the court with sufficient information to make a determination with respect to the landlord’s negligence without the necessity of a trial. I therefore grant judgment in favour of the plaintiff Amir Youssef against the defendant 693316 Ontario Limited o/a Toronto Redi-Mix Limited on the issue of liability. The issue of damages remains a triable issue.
As explained by the court in the Youssef case as provided above, a landlord is statutorily obligated to maintain a rental unit and the rental complex, including the fences that are intended to keep animals, that may be owned by the tenant, from escaping the property. This statutory obligation to maintain the rented premises is prescribed within the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, Chapter 17, as well as the General Maintenance, O. Reg. 517/06 regulation to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, wherein each it is respectively stated:
Landlord’s responsibility to repair
20 (1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.
Same
(2) Subsection (1) applies even if the tenant was aware of a state of non-repair or a contravention of a standard before entering into the tenancy agreement.
Retaining walls, guards and fences
8. Retaining walls, guards and fences in exterior common areas shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition and free from hazards.
Conclusion
A landlord may be without direct or immediate possession of the rented property; however, the landlord remains obligated in law to maintain the rental unit and the rental complex; and accordingly, a failure to maintain the property, which causes or contributes to injuries or damage, may result in liability upon the landlord. This liability may even occur in situations such as the escape of an animal owned by the tenant, where the animal escaped through a poorly maintained fence, the animal entered upon a roadway, and the animal caused injury to a motorcyclist.