Aside from the usual, human rights and discrimination aside, are there those type or class of applicant that you will not even consider renting to. Excluding the obvious such as criminals, those with pets or children etc based on your specific property type.
Off the top of my head and keeping in mind that we all have standards that may not be strictly legal would you reject some of these :
Neck and facial tattoos, single guys, recently separated women, single mothers, welfare, restaurant workers, nationalities know to cook offensive smelling food, smokers, low income immigrants, bikers, tattoo artists, recreational drug users, prostitutes. others.
Or based on human rights laws etc. is everyone welcome as long as they pass basic screening standards.
How do you feel about intermixing these types into a multi unit environment.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are Canadians even allowed to disagree in public!? Isn't that against the law too? Because it sure sounds like everything else is.
I read all of these regulations very simply: Don't be a real estate investor in Canada.
!!!! "those with ... children etc... single mothers... nationalities... immigrants.... " Wow. Those are federal fair housing law violations. At least in the US...
Be really, really careful if you buy any rentals in the US. Those concepts will not fly.
Same in Canada. I am viewing this from a business perspective not personal racist or twisted attitudes. Strictly from the position of redusing landlord risks regarding non payment, damage etc.
For example: offensive smelling foods. In a multi unit a landlord will get complaints from all other tenants and potentially lose good tenants.
Same follows with young children being introduced into a multi unit.
The risk is high with recently separated women in regards to ex visiting and damaging property or worse.
Do you as responsible landlords concerned with your investment and your other tenants make these tough decisions or do you shrug your shoulders and simply say.... sorry to all my present tenants but it's the law. .
As you acknowledged in response to Chris' post, you may not discriminate based upon nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex or sexual orientation, familial status, etc. in Canada.
You may discriminate against smoking, criminal records, prior evictions, recreational drug use (though it's doubtful the applicants will divulge such information), pets, etc. [Side Note: Are you still allowed to discriminate against pets in Ontario? {You can no longer charge "pet rent" or deposits}]
The best business practice is to document an application and selection process for prospective tenants, that is within the confines of the law, and to apply it uniformly to all applicants.
@Greg S. Short answer is no. If there is a legitimate reason to deny the applicant, that's a different story. But singling out protected classes is not a good practice. Financially or otherwise.
BTW, usually there is a way to mitigate some, what I would call, prejudicial biases. For instance, I rent to people with no income. Students, specifically, come to mind. I make sure there is a financial backer or I take pre-payment. I do draw a line though with certain non-protected classes. Applicants with a criminal history come to mind. Applicants with prior evictions, etc....
Landlords in Ontario have next to no rights at all. We have the most pro tenant anti landlord legislation in North America to my knowledge, not sure about California.
We have no right to end leases, only tenants have that right, and aside from non payment of rent evictions are near impossible. Our regulations were established to protect tenants - governed by a quazy legal government board know as The Tenant Protection Board and although they changed the name to the Landlord Tenant Board they did not change any of the regulations.
The laws here practically force us to "discriminate" in order to protect our good tenants.
Not saying I break the law :)
Landlords in Ontario have next to no rights at all. We have the most pro tenant anti landlord legislation in North America to my knowledge, not sure about California.
We have no right to end leases, only tenants have that right, and aside from non payment of rent evictions are near impossible. Our regulations were established to protect tenants - governed by a quazy legal government board know as The Tenant Protection Board and although they changed the name to the Landlord Tenant Board they did not change any of the regulations.
The laws here practically force us to "discriminate" in order to protect our good tenants.
Not saying I break the law :)
Greg:
You might want to re-read the Residential Tenancy Act for Ontario ;-) You can terminate a {monthly} periodic lease in Ontario with a 90-day notice {not the longest in the country by the way, but about average}.
You may also be surprised to learn that Nova Scotia is a tad more tenant friendly than Ontario ... have a look at the following thread, where I posted a quick comparison in response to a similar statement a couple of weeks ago.
I know our regs inside out and backwards. Tenants can not be terminated without just cause and I can assure you achieving just cause in Ontario is almost impossible.
A landlord legally can not simply decide to terminate a lease. Aside from non payment of rent the board will almost without exception deny a landlords application to evict and allow a "bad" tenant chance after chance to correct their ways. Even for non payment of rent it can take 3-6 months or more to evict and professional tenants can and have lived rent free in Ontario for more than a year while also destroying the properties.
No we can not simply replace undesirable/bad tenants in a nanny state.
Here is another example of Ontario codes- Ontario human rights- landlords may not use a income scale to determine a applicants ability to pay. If your rent is $1000/month and the tenants income is $1000/ month it is a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code to deny the applicant based on their ability to pay rent.
So in your area what do you have to do to bend the law to protect your business/tenants.
I know our regs inside out and backwards. Tenants can not be terminated without just cause and I can assure you achieving just cause in Ontario is almost impossible.
A landlord legally can not simply decide to terminate a lease. Aside from non payment of rent the board will almost without exception deny a landlords application to evict and allow a "bad" tenant chance after chance to correct their ways. Even for non payment of rent it can take 3-6 months or more to evict and professional tenants can and have lived rent free in Ontario for more than a year while also destroying the properties.
That is simply not true. If you read Part V Security of Tenure and Termination of Tenancies of the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act (2006), you will see the conditions and process for serving a Notice to Terminate by either the landlord or tenant. It also appears that my number of 90-days may be out of date as Section 44 of the act stipulates a period of 60-days for a monthly tenancy, 60-days before the anniversary date for an annual tenancy and 60-days before the termination date (end date) of a term tenancy.
Regular termination and Termination for Cause (referred to other jurisdictions as Notice to Vacate, Notice to Quit, or, colloquially, Eviction) are two different matters. It suggests from your paragraph above you see them as one in the same. I agree with you that Termination for Cause can go slowly in Ontario, particularly in the Big Smoke where the Landlord Tenant Board seems to be chronically "backed-up".
Housing is seen as a fundamental right nationally, not just in Ontario. I understand there has been a debate between tenants advocacy groups and landlord / landlord associations over interpretation of the RTA and its deferral to Section 21 of the Human Rights Code. In reading the OHRC website, it appears the matter appears to still be oscillating and unsettled and, while the "code" does not forbid the use of income and credit information in screening a tenant's ability to pay, it also does not provide concrete guidance and interpretation. No, I do not envy you in this environment.
This is where a landlords extensive understanding of the act is essential.
Part V is limited by section 37 (1) stating termination is to be in accordance with the Act.
Accordance with the act is defined in sections 48 through 68. These are the full extent of reasons under which a landlord may terminate a tenants lease. There is no other way to terminate a lease unless the tenant wishes to terminate. And as I previously mentioned it is very rare except in the most severe cases for our board to uphold a landlords request to terminate under any of those reasons.
As a example I had a tenant selling drugs, driving a unlicensed/uninsured vehicle and threatening other tenants all on the property. I was unable to get the police to place charges because it was on private property and Landlord/tenant problems are, in the eyes of the police, a civil matter. The adjudicator denied my application to evict because, in his opinion, no other tenant had yet been directly harmed by the tenant in question and no other tenants appeared, at the hearing, to testify against the tenant. They would not testify because they were all afraid of retaliation from the tenant I was trying to evict. All my tenants are on month to month.
The human rights act is rarely brought into play and personally they will not find any evidence to support a charge of discrimination on my part. Based on my experience level It is the very least of my concerns.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are Canadians even allowed to disagree in public!? Isn't that against the law too? Because it sure sounds like everything else is.
I read all of these regulations very simply: Don't be a real estate investor in Canada.
This is where a landlords extensive understanding of the act is essential.
Part V is limited by section 37 (1) stating termination is to be in accordance with the Act.
Accordance with the act is defined in sections 48 through 68. These are the full extent of reasons under which a landlord may terminate a tenants lease. There is no other way to terminate a lease unless the tenant wishes to terminate. And as I previously mentioned it is very rare except in the most severe cases for our board to uphold a landlords request to terminate under any of those reasons.
Greg:
The reasons, or conditions, under which a landlord may terminate a lease under the Ontario RTA are not really different than those in other provinces (New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, as examples). It does seem, based upon your recount, that how the Ontario Landlord Tenancy Board interprets and enforces the act may differ from the Rentalsman in other jurisdictions. {In NB, the Rentlasman is fairly equitable in its enforcement}.
However if a landlord or tenant is merely serving a Notice of Termination coinciding with the end of a term lease or end of a lease period (as opposed to Termination with Cause), the wording of the act (which is very similar to the wording of the RTA in other provinces) does not appear to require the server of the notice - either landlord or tenant - to provide a reason for not renewing the tenancy.
Same in Canada. I am viewing this from a business perspective not personal racist or twisted attitudes. Strictly from the position of redusing landlord risks regarding non payment, damage etc.
.
You're trading the risk of missing a rent payment, for the risk of a zillion dollar law suit.
I don't think that is a solid trade-off. Even your tattoo thing, great you just discriminated against a whole bunch of Polynesians on the basis of nationality (and/or religion), because face tats are part of many of those cultures (and/or religions).
And obviously you are not going to be able to just look at someone's skin tone and conclude that their grandfather isn't 1/2 Polynesian. You have absolutely no clue why someone has those face tats that you dislike, and a law suit would not be a fun way to find out!
Sorry, your incorrect again Roy. I have been at this a long time and have been to the board a dozen or more times on tenant issues in any given year.
Jason Canada is not the problem just Ontario and Quebec, Anywhere west of Ontario is OK landlord/tenant regulations wise to invest.
You are correct we are not permitted legally to disagree in public however the courts have made special exceptions in regards to the interweb. It is difficult to prove on the interweb that we are not some other nationality simply posing as Canadians. Trust me on the interweb we can get pretty fiestey and do at times take off our mittens.
IMO, everyone directly answering the question with any criterion an all is at risk for a discrimination suite.
As a Landlord, IMO, we seek those that QUALIFY, and disclosing any criteria of those who do not qualify is an extreme risk.
Chris the way I operate I am not taking any risk, I always accept the most qualified applicant. Some times it just takes a little time to receive all the applications.
No one with tattoos has been turned down by me because of their tattoos but I have never had to rent to any applicant with facial (or knuckle) tattoos. Same goes for all the other examples I suggested. You do not have to blatantly discriminate when not choosing those you do not want to rent to. It' all in the art of being a skilled landlord.
I never provide any applicant with the reason they are denied and always have good reason to accept the applicant I choose. No provable violations, no fear.
@Thomas S. Well said "Vapor space" :Grin:
Obviously the assumption was to document and implement any such "vapor"
Sorry, your incorrect again Roy. I have been at this a long time and have been to the board a dozen or more times on tenant issues in any given year.
Jason Canada is not the problem just Ontario and Quebec, Anywhere west of Ontario is OK landlord/tenant regulations wise to invest.
You are correct we are not permitted lrgally to disagree in public however the courts have made special exceptions in regards to the interweb. It is difficult to prove on the interweb that we are not some other nationality simply posing as Canadians. Trust me on the interweb we can get pretty fiestey and do at times take off our mittens.
Greg:
We operate in three provinces, but not Ontario {yet}, and obviously, I do not have your experience with the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board. I have read the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and we have had prepared a comparison to the corresponding legislation in the provinces where we do operate.
I am entirely open to to the possibility either our comparison is incorrect or we are misreading it and you offer the potential of a learning experience.
So, rather than chastise, please enlighten.
I apologise if I appeared to chastise, the interweb can be a difficult medium to communicate
It is explicitly simple. Landlords in Ontario have no rights other than those granted within in the RTA. There is no written right within the RTA allowing a landlord to terminate a tenants lease outside of those reasons specified within the RTA (sections 48-68). No landlord may make application to the board to terminate a tenants lease without using the specific forms provided by the LTB. The forms require the landlord to chose the reason for requesting termination and the reasons to terminate can only be those included in the RTA.
Therefor if you wish to simply end a tenants lease without just cause (just cause being strictly defined within the RTA) there is no box to chose and therefor your application is invalid and automatically denied for being improperly filed.
Primarily the problem boils down to the Ontario governments unwritten policy to not evict and grants adjudicators the authority to ignore their own regulations to that end. It's interpretation based on a nanny state mentality. You would be very wise to invest anywhere but Ontario given any other option.
The Ontario LTB adjudicators have unwritten instructions to not terminate or evict without first placing the burden back on landlords to correct or tolerate tenant issues. The opinion of the Ontario LTB is that bad tenants are the fault of the landlord for having not screened properly. To put it bluntly they believe that as long as we are receiving rent we have little to complain about.
Ontario landlords must screen very thoroughly and regrettably make decisions to reject applicants within the grey area bordering on discrimination to mitigate their risk primarily due to the governments anti landlord policies.
I will give an example of the lunacy of our system based on known facts.
A home owner decides to establish a suite in their basement, very common these days. They rent it to a tenant and over the years have various tenants without problems. They then have a long term tenant in place, they decide they want to spend their winters in Florida and do not want a tenant any longer in their basement. The owners ask their tenant to leave and he refuses. The owners may only terminate with just cause and that just cause must be stated in the RTA. No where in the RTA does it say you can simply chose not to be a landlord any longer and terminate your tenants lease. They are obligated to rent to that tenant as long as they own the home and the tenant continues to be a good paying quiet tenant that follows all the rules. Only if that tenant moves out by their own accord may they chose to stop being landlords. All rental properties are treated the same under the RTA.
They could however lie to a adjudicator. They can claim personal or close relative use. Personal use is extremely difficult to justify but in rare cases can be done but still a lie. Family would need to live in the unit for minimum of a year or the tenant that left can file against the owner for damages or reclaim the unit.
@Thomas S. "The owners may only terminate with just cause and that just cause must be stated in the RTA. No where in the RTA does it say you can simply chose not to be a landlord any longer and terminate your tenants lease. They are obligated to rent to that tenant as long as they own the home and the tenant continues to be a good paying quiet tenant that follows all the rules."
IMO totally irrational and contrary to the simplest logic. But yet again, What today is still rational?
@Thomas S. I've read your original post four times now and each time I go away more shocked than the last time! If I was to gaze into a crystal ball to view your future, I would certainly see a Fair Housing Act violation tattooed on your forehead. Sorry, don't mean to be harsh but I am taken aback at what you wrote.
"Off the top of my head and keeping in mind that we all have standards that may not be strictly legal....." Wow! Stop yourself right there. IMO, your statement speaks to >>>>>>> Yes, I'm willing to break or bend the law to serve my self-interests.
Some people will say there are 2 types of people: Those that see everything as either Black or White and those that also see some grey. I happen to believe Property Management has it's fair share of grey, also. I may be wrong but, that's just he way I see the world. BUT when it comes to the laws and qualifying prospective tenants, I believe: .... There is NO grey when it comes to the laws and qualifying prospective tenants. Believing that keeps you out of trouble. It keeps you out of court. It allows you to retain your license, should be already be licensed. You want to disqualify an applicant? Do it lawfully. Don't bend the laws, it's not worth it.
Neck and facial tattoos? Restaurant workers? Low income immigrants? Bikers? Tattoo artists? Nationalities and their offensive smelling food? The more I read what you posted the more I believe you're either a racist or a bigot....or both.
Money is blind. It doesn't care what color you are, what you cook, your tattoo's, etc. You should be blind, also. You should be concerned with: Do they pay their rent? Do they pay their rent on time? Do they take care of the property? Are they respectful to other tenants and to you, as Landlord? Do they contact you asap if there's a property issue to be reported. Care about those things.
You are correct we are not permitted legally to disagree in public however the courts have made special exceptions in regards to the interweb. It is difficult to prove on the interweb that we are not some other nationality simply posing as Canadians. Trust me on the interweb we can get pretty fiestey and do at times take off our mittens.
You, sir, are my new (allegedly) Canadian Hero!