Discrimination in rental housing often operates in the shadows, manifesting through seemingly neutral policies, inadequate accommodation efforts, or outright prejudicial treatment. While Ontario's Human Rights Code provides robust protections for tenants, real-world cases reveal the complex challenges tenants face when asserting their rights. Through an analysis of recent Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions, we examine how discrimination unfolds in practice and what tenants can do to protect themselves.
The Scope of the Problem
Discrimination in rental housing takes many forms, from obvious cases involving racial slurs to subtle failures to accommodate disabilities. The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability, and receipt of public assistance.
However, proving discrimination at the LTB requires more than showing differential treatment—tenants must establish a connection between their protected characteristic and the adverse treatment they experienced.
Disability Discrimination: The Duty to Accommodate
When Landlords Fail to Meet Their Obligations
Disability-related discrimination represents one of the most complex areas in rental housing law. Landlords have a positive duty to accommodate tenants with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship, but many fail to understand or fulfill this obligation.
In TT-v-MM-2015-TSL-59271-15, a landlord sought to evict a tenant whose mental illness resulted in disruptive behavior, including alleged threats and disturbances. The LTB dismissed the application, finding that the landlord failed to engage in the accommodation process required by the Human Rights Code before serving termination notices. The Board emphasized that landlords must consult with tenants and health professionals to develop reasonable plans to address disability-related behavior issues.
Similarly, in HPPM-v-JZ-2018-TSL-95041-18, a landlord attempted to evict a tenant with severe OCD whose condition affected his ability to maintain cleanliness in his unit. The LTB found that the tenant's condition was protected under the Human Rights Code and that the landlord failed to meet the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.
The Accommodation Process: More Than Just Good Intentions
Effective accommodation requires active engagement, not passive acceptance. In K.C.-P.(GP)-v-I.W.-20190122, a tenant installed a taller fence to protect her service dog from coyotes, violating property rules. When the landlord sought eviction, the LTB found that the landlord breached its procedural duty to accommodate by filing the application without first exploring accommodation options. The tenant was permitted to keep the non-conforming fence as long as the disability-related need persisted.
The case demonstrates that landlords cannot simply deny accommodation requests—they must engage in a meaningful dialogue to find solutions that balance tenant needs with legitimate property management concerns.
When Accommodation Has Limits
Not all disability-related behavior is protected. In R-C-F-v-P-M-and-P-C-20180626, a tenant with disabilities spat at and swore at building staff. The LTB found that while the tenant had disabilities, these were not the direct cause of her conduct, and she had not requested accommodation. The Board emphasized that having a disability does not excuse all problematic behavior.
Family Status Discrimination: Beyond Obvious Cases
The Landmark Assignment Case
One of the most significant recent developments in human rights law came in salim-v-singh-20240503, where the Divisional Court found that the LTB erred by failing to consider the Human Rights Code when assessing whether a landlord's refusal to assign a lease was "arbitrary or unreasonable."
The landlord had refused to assign the tenancy to a couple with three children, citing concerns about family size for the rental unit. The Court established that discrimination based on family size can constitute family status discrimination and that the LTB must consider Human Rights Code implications when evaluating assignment refusals.
Adults-Only Buildings and Family Status
In L.I.-v-L.G.-and-J.G.-20161017, tenants faced eviction after taking custody of their infant grandchild in an "adults only" building. The landlord repeatedly attempted eviction, stating the building was not for children. The LTB found this constituted discrimination on the grounds of family status under the Human Rights Code, even while ordering eviction for rent arrears.
Racial and Ethnic Discrimination: When Prejudice Becomes Explicit
Overt Discrimination Cases
While many discrimination cases involve subtle or systemic issues, some involve explicit prejudicial conduct. In HCH-v-TD-20181102, a tenant in supportive housing assaulted staff and other tenants while using racial slurs. Despite the tenant's disability, the LTB found that the violent and racially insensitive nature of the conduct made the tenancy unsustainable.
Similarly, in LML-v-KK-BL-DC-20200814, tenants and their occupants harassed another tenant with racial slurs, threats, and physical assault. The LTB terminated the tenancy, finding that the conduct substantially interfered with other tenants' reasonable enjoyment.
Place of Origin Claims
In Ramirez-Sanchez-v-Medallion-Corporation-20230315, a tenant alleged discrimination based on Venezuelan origin regarding access to building amenities and security concerns. However, the Human Rights Tribunal found the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, as the issues were general grievances about landlord policies rather than discrimination based on protected grounds.
The Intersection of Multiple Grounds
When Disabilities Meet Other Protected Characteristics
Some cases involve multiple potential grounds of discrimination. In Yu-v-CW-20171102, a university student with cerebral palsy faced eviction after losing student status due to academic difficulties. She alleged the university failed to accommodate her disability-related needs, leading to her academic decline. The LTB allowed the eviction application to proceed while noting that the Human Rights Tribunal would have jurisdiction to address accommodation failures if proven.
Procedural Challenges and Jurisdictional Issues
The LTB vs. Human Rights Tribunal
Tenants facing discrimination often struggle with jurisdictional questions—should they file at the LTB or the Human Rights Tribunal? In Mattila-v-Timbercreek-Asset-Management-Inc-20230324, the Human Rights Tribunal dismissed an application because the LTB had already addressed the same allegations and found them without merit.
The case illustrates the importance of strategic decision-making about where to file discrimination complaints, as pursuing multiple forums can lead to procedural complications.
What Tenants Can Do: Practical Steps
Document Everything
Successful discrimination cases require strong evidence. Tenants should:
- Keep detailed records of all interactions with landlords
- Document any comments or actions that suggest discriminatory intent
- Preserve written communications, including emails and text messages
- Take photographs of relevant conditions or situations
Request Accommodation Formally
For disability-related issues, tenants should:
- Make accommodation requests in writing
- Provide medical documentation when appropriate
- Engage constructively in the accommodation process
- Keep records of all accommodation discussions
Know Your Rights and Deadlines
- Human Rights Tribunal applications must be filed within one year of the last incident
- LTB applications have various deadlines depending on the type of claim
- Consider whether to file at the LTB, Human Rights Tribunal, or both (with careful attention to jurisdictional issues)
Seek Professional Help
Given the complexity of discrimination law, tenants facing serious discrimination should consider:
- Consulting with a paralegal or lawyer experienced in human rights law
- Contacting the Human Rights Legal Support Centre
- Seeking assistance from tenant advocacy organizations
The Landlord's Perspective: Avoiding Discrimination Claims
Best Practices for Landlords
Smart landlords can avoid discrimination issues by:
- Training staff on human rights obligations
- Developing clear, non-discriminatory policies
- Engaging meaningfully in accommodation discussions
- Documenting legitimate business reasons for decisions
- Seeking legal advice when accommodation requests arise
When Accommodation Becomes Undue Hardship
Landlords are not required to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, but they must demonstrate that accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense. Factors include:
- Cost of accommodation relative to the landlord's resources
- Impact on other tenants or building operations
- Health and safety considerations
- Whether alternative accommodations are available
Looking Forward: Trends and Implications
Evolving Jurisprudence
Recent cases show courts and tribunals taking a more expansive view of discrimination, particularly regarding:
- Family status discrimination in housing contexts
- The intersection of the Human Rights Code with other legislation
- Procedural requirements for accommodation
Systemic Issues
Many discrimination cases reveal systemic problems in Ontario's rental market:
- Inadequate understanding of human rights obligations among landlords
- Limited resources for tenants to pursue discrimination claims
- Complex jurisdictional issues between different tribunals
Conclusion
Discrimination in Ontario's rental market remains a persistent problem, affecting vulnerable tenants across multiple protected grounds. While the Human Rights Code provides strong theoretical protections, real-world enforcement requires tenants to navigate complex legal processes with limited resources.
The cases examined reveal both the potential for meaningful remedies and the challenges tenants face in asserting their rights. Success often depends on strong documentation, understanding procedural requirements, and accessing appropriate legal support.
For landlords, the message is clear: human rights obligations are not optional add-ons to property management—they are fundamental legal requirements that must be integrated into all aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship.
As Ontario's rental market continues to evolve, ensuring equal access to housing for all residents remains both a legal imperative and a social necessity. Only through continued vigilance, education, and enforcement can we work toward a truly inclusive rental housing system.
