is this discriminatory

Post Reply New Topic

I emailed the landlord of a unit I was interested in, and disclosed that my source of income is ODSP. Then I called him and scheduled a viewing. Just prior to the scheduled time he called and said that he would prefer to rent to someone working full time.

Now, it's fine with me because tbh I dont want to move anyway, but I wonder if this is an ethical matter, or just one of "ces't la vie."

Ces't la vie.
The landlord needs to be confident that he'll get paid. I don't see any discrimination in that.

Yeah, that's fair, but I thought that by telling him that I was receiving the benefit that he would be more assured of receiving regular payment, not less assured.

Did you ask what his reasoning is?
It could be due to a bad experience with a former tenant receiving ODSP.
Just throwing thoughts out there....

Didn't ask. I guess I was afraid of what he mignt say as answer. He may have had such an experience. ODSP recipients do have a bit of a bad reputation. Mostly based on the behaviour of the loud and obnoxious few. I suppose I can't blame him, but still, I have never not paid my rent and I have current references. I probably could have argued the point with him, but it's not my preference to argue about my desirability with someone who has already rejected me.

If it were in his best interests to rent to someone who's actually working I wouldn't consider it discriminatory but I think it would be better to have a tenant on ODSP because you can't be laid off of welfare. A working person without a disability has less security. It seems like he's acting to his own detriment because of his own preconceived notions and biases. If it's in his best interests to rent to someone and he chooses not to because of a personal bias that's discriminatory. It might not be in his best interests to rent to you and I can't be sure either way because I'm not a landlord and he might know something that I don't.

Without what limited information I have I would say it's discriminatory but it might not be. There may or may not be a justification that I'm not aware of. All I know is it appears discriminatory based on what you've described.

Take a look at this: Crackdown on discrimination in rental ads

The article is focusing on discriminatory advertisements and not tenant choices but I imagine that if it's illegal to say "no ODSP" in an advertisement it would be just as bad to refuse to rent to someone because that person is on ODSP. I don't know how you would prove it even if it is a problem though.

Thanks for finding this!
I'm not going to pursue it but it's an interesting experience.

here's more info from the Ontario Human Rights Commission:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/writing-fair-rental-housing-ad-fact-sheet

it says that they cannot deny you housing based on the receipt of public assistance--so yeah, it's discriminatory.

edit* actually this page has info if you want to report it, at the bottom of the page:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/human-rights-tenants-brochure

Some housing ads contain statements that openly discriminate:

?Must have working income? or ?Must provide proof of employment?
?No ODSP?

^from the Ontario Human Rights Code^

I knew it!

Handicapped or not, this is what you do as a prospective renter.

1. Show you can pay for the place you want to look at. If they question IF they will be paid, they won't want to bother with you.

2. Have a list of references (prior landlords) who can vouch for your character as a tenant. A good reference WILL open doors. If they fear you will damage their property, they won't want to bother with you.

If you could prove he said this he would be up for discrimination here. And rightly so

1. Check. ODSP provides a regular amount.

2. Check. Current landlord offered as reference.


It was said during a phone conversation, so there's no evidence other than what I heard him say.

Talk to him again. See if you can get him to repeat what he said and record it this time.

I choose not to accept this mission.

Far too complex for me and I have nothing to gain.

Good to know that there are people with such superficial views. Perhaps I won't be as surprised next time.

i just read the question not the post and though it was discriminatory because it had 2 answers. so count one less for the second option.