Housing

• Housing: It's a Human Right, Not a Privilege
• Areas Covered by Housing Rights
• Tenant Selection
• Providing Tenant Accommodation
• A Few Examples of Discrimination
• Advertising That is Discriminatory
• Criteria for Renting
• Income Requirements
• Rental History
• Employment History
• Credit history
• Guarantors
• Requirements for Security Deposits & Extra Rent

In the Human Rights Code of Ontario, everyone is entitled to equality and non-discrimination in:

• Contracts
• Employment
• Housing
• Membership
• Services, goods and facilities

Human rights laws prohibit employers, landlords, union representatives, and service providers from discriminating. Accordingly, in most cases, you cannot be treated differently because of your differences listed in the Human Rights Code.

These include your:

• Age
• Citizenship or country you are from
• Gender expression
• Gender identity
• Marital status, for example, married, divorced, single, or living common-law
• Physical or mental disability, including an addiction
• Race, colour, or ethnic background
• Record of offences (employment only, must have been pardoned)
• Religion
• Sex
• Sexual orientation

Or because you:

• Are pregnant
• Have children
• Are caring for a relative
• Employers, landlords, union representatives, and service providers must accommodate you unless they prove undue hardship.

Direct Discrimination

Some cases of discrimination are very obvious. There is a term used sometimes to describe this type of discrimination as direct discrimination.

Here are some examples:

• A company won't hire women who wish to start a family. Sexist and familial discrimination is taking place here.
• An apartment won't be rented to someone from a different ethnicity if the landlord prefers to rent to someone from their ethnicity. Ethnic discrimination is taking place here.
• Indirect Discrimination
• Discrimination is committed by an organization or individual on behalf of another. Upon hiring a property manager, a landlord instructs them not to rent to people born outside of Canada. Using the property manager, the landlord discriminates against the tenants in this case.

Constructive Discrimination

The same rule or practice may affect one group differently and lead to unequal treatment. It's called constructive discrimination.

Some examples:

• An entire building can only be entered and exited via stairs. People who use wheelchairs can be discriminated against when a ramp is needed in place of stairs.
• The workplace has a dress code or uniform requirement for hats. It is possible to discriminate against people who wear hijabs, turbans, or other religious head coverings.

As a member of a group identified by the Code, a tenant may not be required to pay their rent directly to a third party. 

Many housing providers require prospective tenants to arrange to have their rent paid directly by social services if they are receiving social assistance, or by another source of income, regardless of their demonstrated ability to pay. This practice, when applied to recipients of social assistance, constitutes a violation of the Code, according to an Ontario human rights tribunal.

In some cases, however, direct payment of rent may be considered a bona fide and reasonable requirement if it is accompanied by other non-discriminatory factors, such as a situation where a tenant defaults on their rent; a situation where direct payment is a condition for rent-geared-to-income units; or a situation where direct payment has been ordered by a social assistance program following misuse of benefits. 

While direct payment may be demonstrated to be a bona fide requirement, the OHRC believes housing providers should implement such an arrangement in an individualized manner, and keep in mind that a tenant's circumstances may require the landlord to be flexible.

Neither Section 21(3) of the Code nor Regulation 290/98 permit nor prohibit the use of criminal or other police record checks in rental housing. 

People identified by Code grounds may be negatively affected by requiring a criminal or other police record check as a condition of tenancy. 

A person with a mental health disability may, for instance, have had noncriminal contact with the police under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. This would be revealed by a police record check, thus violating that person's privacy and exposing them to potential discrimination.

A housing provider may reasonably conduct a criminal record check on a prospective tenant under certain circumstances. As an example, a mother with young children renting out her basement may be able to establish the rental is legal because of safety concerns

Her home has a genuine requirement that tenants do not have criminal records. A prospective tenant must consent to the record check before it can be conducted.

In some cases, landlords ask for Social Insurance Numbers (e.g. on rental application forms) to do a credit check on the applicant. 

The applicant's Social Insurance Number may reveal information about the applicant that is irrelevant to securing a rental premise, such as that the applicant is a refugee. 

Due to the potential discrimination associated with such information, it is the OHRC's position that housing providers should conduct credit checks in other ways than by using Social Insurance Numbers. 

The federal government's Department of Service Canada discourages private sector organizations from requesting Social Insurance Numbers from landlords.

A rigid restriction on the number of occupants per room or bedroom may adversely affect Code-protected groups, such as families with children, pregnant women, or "non-Western" or extended families. It is not the landlord's responsibility to allow overcrowding of rental units, but restrictions on the maximum number of occupants must be justified by legitimate health and safety concerns.

A human rights tribunal found a violation of the Code when a landlord refused to rent a three-bedroom apartment to a single mom of three children because the “Canadian standard” was that such apartments should be rented to couples with two children. 

When a tenant discovered that she was going through a divorce, and her two daughters would visit her every Sunday, she was denied the opportunity to rent the apartment of her choice. It was the landlord's policy never to rent any of his four-and-a-half-room apartments to more than two people at a time. This policy was found by the Quebec Court of Appeal to be "a very effective anti-child barrier," because it excluded all children living with two parents as well as all lone-parent families with more than one child. 

Concerns could also arise if the opposite occurred. Divorced parents may be prevented from having their children stay overnight if a policy prohibits single adults from renting apartments with more than one bedroom.

It may be difficult for lone-parent families to access housing if housing policies require a minimum number of bedrooms based on their number and gender. A tribunal has also ruled against limiting apartment buildings to "families," which excludes lone-parent families and common-law couples.

Previously, a landlord had an informal policy of only renting one-bedroom apartments to couples or singles; two bedrooms to couples with one child; and three bedrooms to couples with two children. He might rent a three-bedroom apartment to a family with three children, but only if they were very young, and even then they would have to move to a bigger place soon. 

An apartment with a three-bedroom was denied to a lone mother of three children in this case. Based on the family status of the employees, this policy was found to discriminate against them. 

Furthermore, it has been argued that policies restricting the sharing of rooms by opposite-sex siblings may reduce access to affordable rental housing for families with children. As they effectively deny access to affordable housing, such policies may have a significant impact on the social and economic rights of families.