‘Pets are a part of the family’: No-pet policies hinder housing search for Vancouver’s most vulnerable

Michael Cox and his 16-year-old cat, Pumpkin, have been desperately searching for a pet-friendly apartment for over two years. 

Cox, a 71-year-old retired bus driver, has lived in a pet-friendly co-op in East Vancouver for almost a decade. While he has many friends in the city, he is ready for a change of pace for the next chapter of his life, he said: “I like Vancouver, but my sister is in Victoria, and I want to be closer to her as we both age.” 

However, due to restrictive no-pet policies in much of the province’s rental stock, Cox has had little luck finding a new apartment in his price range that will accept Pumpkin. 

This is far from the first time that Cox has faced housing struggles tied to pet ownership. In the past, he was evicted by his landlord’s son for having two cats after living in an apartment near UBC for five years, despite the building manager's approval. “We were given two months to move out because we weren’t going to give up the cats.”

Following the eviction, Cox searched unsuccessfully for pet-friendly housing and eventually moved his two cats discreetly into a West End apartment that did not permit pets. While he was far from the only one of his neighbours to have unapproved pets in the building, he described it as “quite the stressor” to have to maintain a pet “as surreptitiously” as he could. 

“My story isn’t particularly unusual, I’m just [one of many] in this city who can’t rent because of the no-pets thing,” said Cox. One survey found that nearly one-third of British Columbians have struggled to find pet-friendly housing, with apartments that allow animals typically costing more than their pet-free counterparts. 

Boasting the most expensive rental landscape in the country, it can be exceptionally difficult, particularly for seniors, people with disabilities, and those on lower incomes, to find housing in Vancouver, Sarah Marsden, director of systems change and legal at First United, told Vancity Lookout. 

“We're already in a housing crisis, and if you have a pet, it's clearly that much more difficult to find a place to live,” she said. 

In 2024, as part of their campaign, the BC NDP promised to ban no-pet clauses in rental agreements. First United and BC SPCA charities are now calling on the provincial government to make good on that promise.  

“This is something that is going to be helpful for lower-income people in diverse groups… and is definitely going to have a strong impact in an urban area like East Vancouver,” Marsden said. 

The legislation that First United has proposed would ban no-pet policies in all purpose-built rental units and stratas with five or more units, but would not include basement suites or smaller units. 

In 2025, the Union of BC Municipalities nearly passed a motion on pet bans, which Marsden said ultimately failed because it did not distinguish between landlords renting a unit in their own house and landlords with larger buildings. Concerns were raised, for example, that landlords who owned basement suites could not ban animals despite issues such as pet dander allergies. 

Moving forward, Marsden said that she hopes the province will consider something like what First United has proposed, particularly given that “there’s a lot of research showing that pets are really beneficial for people’s mental and physical health.”

As a senior who lives alone, Cox said that Pumpkin is more than just a pet; she is an instrumental part of his general well-being. 

Cox suffers from depression and “in the wintertime, I can have some pretty bleak days,” he said. “But I’ve got this little creature that depends on me, and that is enough to keep me going.” 

Studies have shown that pets can improve cardiovascular health, decrease loneliness, lower stress levels and increase opportunities for exercise. 

Some people, for example, those with service animals, explicitly require animal companions. However, Marsden said that, despite laws intended to protect people in these situations, First United still frequently hears of these groups facing discrimination when searching for housing.

“The policy is neutral on its face, but if it becomes very hard for certain groups of people, like low-income seniors [and people with disabilities] to find housing, then we start to see this as a human rights issue.” 

Due in part to the frequently higher prices of pet-friendly housing, a recent report from First United revealed that many people have had to move farther from work, leave the city entirely, or move back in with family to accommodate a pet.

“As a landlord, if they have something that is a scarce commodity, then it will command more money in the market,” said Marsden. “If we change [that] so that [pet-friendly rentals] are no longer a scarce commodity, then hopefully that would even out.” 

In a statement sent to Vancity Lookout, BC’s Ministry of Housing wrote they “understand the concerns and challenges of renters,” but they also “acknowledge the concerns raised related to property damage, noise, health and safety.” 

According to research by First United, 82 per cent of cases where there was a compensation award for pet damage were for an amount that was less than the pet deposit already being paid by the tenant.

Under the existing Residential Tenancy Act, tenants are already “financially responsible for any damages caused by themselves, their guests or pets.”

“It gives landlords a way to get compensation where there’s damage, and it also tells us that the damage is usually… hundreds of dollars rather than thousands,” said Marsden. 

A nearby example of this policy in action can be found in Ontario, which has forbidden pet bans for nearly 20 years. If a landlord in Ontario were to slip in a rule against pets in the tenancy agreement, the contract would become void under Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act. 

While this does not entirely prevent landlords from citing ‘no pets’ in apartment listings, it does mean that tenants who have already signed a contract cannot be evicted for having pets, regardless of whether they are “allowed” under their rental agreement. 

However, if a pet becomes excessively disruptive or destructive, a landlord may have more leeway to proceed with eviction on these grounds. 

“There’s no reason it wouldn’t work here,” said Marsden. “We have a similar housing market, and similar housing shortages in a lot of areas of the province [as Ontario]… it would make sense here as well.”

Sarah Herring, government relations officer with the BC SPCA, said that the animal rights community is becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of pet bans. “Housing issues are the leading reason for the surrender of healthy adult animals to the BC SPCA.” 

Since 2014, Herring said they have seen over 12,000 dogs and small animals surrendered to their shelters due to housing reasons. This figure does not include animals surrendered to other organizations, those rehomed privately, or those abandoned as strays.

“These animals don’t need to be in the BC SPCA’s care. If there were more pet-friendly housing, we could use our resources to care for more vulnerable animals.”  

Under the current legislation, in addition to banning pets outright, Herring said that landlords can also ban the size and number of pets. “Even if an apartment is advertised as pet friendly, it may only allow one dog under 20 [kilograms]… a lot of families are going to be excluded from that.”

For landlords concerned that hordes of animals would soon take over their rental units, Herring noted that most cities already have a maximum number of pets permitted per household.

In Vancouver, the Animal Control Bylaw states that unless licensed as a kennel keeper, a person cannot have more than three dogs at any one property at any one time, or more than six smaller animals in total (such as hamsters, cats, rabbits, or reptiles). 

For Cox, he said he would have happily adopted a dog by now if it were not for pet restrictive policies - and he is not alone. According to a BC SPCA survey, 24 per cent of British Columbians report wanting a pet but not being able to because of housing restrictions. 

While First United and the BC SPCA expressed they were "optimistic" that the province will step in with a no-pet policy ban sometime in the near future, Cox said he is skeptical. 

“The landlord-slash-owner lobby and their political friends are quite strong and are listened to more than the renters, same as with developers in Vancouver City Council… so I don’t have much hope for them changing the pet policy,” said Cox. 

The City of Vancouver passed a motion last April that affirmed its intention to advocate for the elimination of no-pet clauses and to expand pet-friendly tenant protections within policies such as the Broadway Plan and the Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy (TRPP).

However, the authority to update the Residential Tenancy Act and implement widespread no-pet policy bans ultimately lies with the province. 

The province did not offer a timeline for when or if a no-pet policy ban may be implemented, but the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs said in written statement to Vancity Lookout that they “are exploring options for pet policies in purpose-built rental buildings,” and noted that “under current rules, landlords and tenants are allowed to discuss and negotiate whether pets are permitted in a rental unit.” 

In the meantime, renters like Cox are left to navigate the affordable housing crisis with their furry friends in tow. 

Said Marsden: “People shouldn't have to choose between having a pet and having a home… pets are part of the family.”