Source: https://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins_sheets_booklets/sheets/protected_grounds/Pages/human_rights_tenancy.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:20:19+00:00

Document:
The Alberta Human Rights Act (the Act) protects Albertans from discrimination in certain areas based on specific personal characteristics (also known as protected grounds). Tenancy is an area where people are protected from discrimination regardless of race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation. Everyone has a right to treatment free of discrimination when renting in Alberta.
Tip: For a detailed discussion of protected grounds in the area of tenancy, see the Commission’s website page. Also see the Commission’s information sheet Protected areas and grounds under the Alberta Human Rights Act.
How does the Act protect Albertans from discrimination in tenancies?
Denying a potential tenant the right to occupancy of an advertised unit based on a protected ground.
For example: A landlord refuses to rent to a prospective tenant because of the tenant’s race.
Discriminating against a tenant or potential tenant regarding a tenancy term or condition based on a protected ground.
For example: A landlord discovers that a tenant has a mental disability and starts treating the tenant poorly. The landlord makes derogatory comments about his disability and spreads rumours about him.
On January 1, 2018, age became a protected ground in the area of tenancy. This means that landlords or other service providers such as property managers cannot discriminate against people 18 years old or older when they are applying to rent or renting. However, the Act allows for age restrictions in seniors-only housing, which is housing for people who are 55 years old or older.
For example: A seniors-only housing complex has a minimum age restriction of 65 and up, meaning that the complex will allow only tenants aged 65 and older to live there. All of the units in the complex are reserved for one or more people, at least one of whom is aged 65 and older. This age restriction would be permitted under the Act and would not be considered discriminatory.
Section 5(2) of the Act also allows for condominium units, co-operative units and mobile home sites to continue with minimum age restrictions that were in existence before January 1, 2018. However, these types of housing must convert to all-ages housing or to seniors-only housing by January 1, 2033.
Tip: Condominium units (whether owner occupied or rented out) with minimum age restrictions that were in existence before January 1, 2018 are still allowed (with a 15-year transition period). For more information, refer to the Commission’s information sheet Human Rights in Condominiums.
Section 5(5) of the Act also allows for “grandfathering” of existing occupants if a landlord adopts a “seniors only” minimum age restriction. This means that people under that minimum age restriction who occupied the premises before the change can continue to live there.
What information can a landlord require from prospective tenants?
When assessing prospective tenants, landlords usually ask for certain information such as rental history and references. While this is usually permissible, courts and human rights tribunals in Canada have found that not renting to tenants based on information about their personal characteristics could amount to discrimination.
Landlords can ask prospective tenants for information on the amount of income they make but cannot refuse to rent to someone because of their source of income. For example, a landlord cannot refuse to rent to someone just because they are receiving income supports, rental subsidies, AISH (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped) or other disability benefits if they otherwise qualify for the rental property.
A landlord may ask about a prospective tenant’s rental history but should be cautious about refusing people because they have no rental history. For example, certain people such as recent immigrants to Canada may not have a rental history in Canada.
Some landlords have applied formulas, called rent-to-income ratios, to determine whether a tenant can afford a rental property. In these cases, a landlord will refuse to rent to people who would have to spend more than a particular percentage, usually 20 to 35 percent, of their income on rent. Courts have found that rent-to-income ratios unfairly disqualify groups based on race, gender, marital status, family status, place of origin, and source of income. These decisions have found that a rent-to-income ratio is not a reliable predictor that a person is likely to fail to pay their rent.
Landlords can ask for credit history and previous landlord references to determine if a person is a desirable tenant but cannot use this information in a discriminatory way. For example, a landlord who asks for credit information only from a particular ethnic group is using information in a discriminatory way. It is also important to note that new immigrants may not have previous Canadian landlord references.
Do you have children? Are you planning on having children?
Are you single? Are you married? Are you divorced?
Tip: If a landlord asks a person for information that can be used to discriminate against them, the person can tell the landlord that they do not feel comfortable answering the question or that the question is inappropriate. The person can also give the landlord information showing that they can be a good tenant who can pay rent on time. If a person believes that they have been discriminated against when finding a place to rent, they may contact the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Discrimination in tenancy can occur when a person is looking for a place to rent. In Fitzhenry v. Schemenauer, a disabled person with a guide dog tried renting the upper floor of a home. When the person called the landlord about renting the property, the landlord told him that dogs were not allowed and that he could not visit the property. The Alberta Human Rights Panel found that the landlord discriminated against the person on the ground of his physical disability.
In Cunanan v. Boolean Development Ltd., a single mother with three teenage sons viewed a three-bedroom apartment and filled out a rental application. The landlord refused to rent to the prospective tenant because he had an “unwritten” policy of renting three-bedroom units only to couples with two children. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal found that there had been discrimination against the single mother based on family status, and the landlord had not provided a reasonable justification for the refusal.
Discrimination in tenancy can also occur when a person is already renting a place. For example, in 409205 Alberta Ltd. v. Alberta (Human Rights & Citizenship Commission), a tenant received various types of income support and a housing subsidy. To support the tenant’s housing subsidy, the landlord agreed to apply annually for the subsidy and to keep the rent reasonable. During his tenancy, the landlord agreed that the tenant could have one cat. When the tenant acquired more cats, the landlord complained about problems with the cats in the hallway and tried to evict the tenant for alleged property damage done by his cats. After the eviction attempt was unsuccessful, the landlord increased the tenant’s rent and did not renew the tenant’s housing subsidy. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta affirmed the Alberta Human Rights Panel’s finding that the alleged damage done by the tenant’s cats was unsubstantiated and that the landlord discriminated against the tenant based on source of income by raising rent and not renewing the subsidy agreement.
Making derogatory comments about a potential tenant’s ancestry and refusing to rent to her based on stereotypes of her family/marital status.
Verbally and physically harassing tenants because of their sexual orientation.
Ending a tenancy without making inquiries about a tenant’s hearing loss and reliance on a service dog.
Ending a tenancy without reasonably accommodating a tenant’s mental disability.
Renting to people of a particular race to the exclusion of others.
Refusing to renegotiate a lease renewal because of a tenant’s race.
The duty to accommodate applies to tenancy situations. Accommodation means making changes to certain rules, standards, policies, and physical environments to ensure that they don't have a negative effect on a person because of the person's mental or physical disability, religion, gender identity or any other protected ground.
Tenants who require accommodation based on a protected ground should let the landlord know of their needs. This gives the landlord the opportunity to make any changes necessary to accommodate the individual requesting the accommodation.
Offer the next available unit on the ground floor to the tenant.
Request quotations for modifications to the building.
Find out whether any permits for zoning changes would be needed.
Installing electronic door opening devices on both doors.
Asking for further information with respect to a tenant’s service dog and disability-related needs upon learning that the dog assisted the tenant with hearing loss.
Contacting a tenant’s family members to intervene when the tenant’s schizophrenic conduct disturbs or potentially disturbs the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.
Not prohibiting a tenant from cooking ethnic foods characteristic of her ancestry in her unit.
Tip: For more information on how to determine if accommodation is necessary and what a landlord needs to do to accommodate a tenant, see the Commission’s human rights guide Duty to Accommodate, or contact the Commission.
Can discrimination be justified in tenancy?
Section 11 of the Act recognizes that, in some circumstances, there is a reasonable and justifiable defence to discrimination. A landlord may argue that there is a reasonable and justifiable defence to discrimination under section 11 of the Act. However, the landlord must be able to provide reasons for its argument that the contravention was reasonable and justifiable.
A landlord may also argue that their conduct was justified based on section 11. This defence cannot be successfully established unless the landlord has attempted to reasonably accommodate to the point of undue hardship. It's important to consider that the undue hardship standard is a very high standard, and as a result, in most situations, landlords will be required to provide some accommodation.
Individuals who believe that a landlord has discriminated against them may first try to resolve the issue on their own. In some cases, the landlord may not be aware that they have done anything discriminatory. A landlord may stop the discrimination and correct any inequity they may have caused if they know about the problem or concern. Before making a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, both tenants and landlords can try to resolve a human rights matter using the following tips.
Be respectful in discussing concerns with the tenant.
Remember that you have a legal duty to accommodate a tenant’s needs to the point of undue hardship. Review the Commission’s human rights guide Duty to accommodate. This will help you decide what is required and how to resolve requests for accommodation.
When a tenant believes they have been discriminated against, they can make a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission within one year of the alleged incident of discrimination. When a landlord or tenant is unsure if a dispute involves a human rights issue, they should contact the Commission.
Important note on age-related complaints: The Commission can only accept age-related complaints in the area of tenancy if the incidents occurred on or after January 1, 2018. Where there are multiple alleged incidents of discrimination that occurred before and after December 31, 2017, only the incidents that took place after December 31, 2017 will be covered under the Act.
Tip: In Alberta, the Residential Tenancies Act applies to most rental situations. There are different dispute resolution options available for landlords and tenants dealing with a tenancy law issue, for example, an eviction or security deposits. For more information, refer to the resources on tenancy law at the end of this publication.
Fitzhenry v. Schemenauer, 2008 AHRC 8 (CanLII).
 Cunanan v. Boolean Development Ltd., 2003 HRTO 17 (CanLII).
409205 Alberta Ltd. v. Alberta (Human Rights & Citizenship Commission), 2002 ABQB 681 (CanLII).
&Hydro-Québec v. Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec, section locale 2000 (SCFP-FTQ),  2 SCR 561, 2008 SCC 43 (CanLII).
 Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud,  2 SCR 970, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC).
 Dixon v. 930187 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 256 (CanLII).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.