The rent-to-income ratio most Canadian landlords use as a screening rule is discriminatory in Ontario, and has been since 1998.

*Kearney v. Bramalea* struck down 30% and 35% income cut-offs because they disproportionately exclude people on social assistance, newcomers, racialized applicants, single mothers, youth and seniors. Cease-and-desist orders followed. The Ontario Human Rights Commission's position has not moved since.

Most landlords using the rule have never heard of the case. Here is the rest of what applies.

The protected grounds

• Alberta — race, religious beliefs, colour, gender including pregnancy, gender identity, gender expression, physical and mental disability, age 18 and over, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status, and sexual orientation. Source of income covers AISH, income support, rent subsidies and Band or Métis Settlement supports.
• British Columbia — race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical and mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age 19 and over, and lawful source of income, which is protected in tenancy specifically.
• Ontario — race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex including pregnancy, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability, and receipt of public assistance.

All three protect income source, family status and gender identity in housing. Ontario alone protects citizenship.

What to ask, and what to leave out

Ontario Regulation 290/98 sets the clearest rule of the three, and it is a sensible standard everywhere.

Permitted: income information, credit references and credit checks, and rental history. Income information is permitted only alongside the other two, never on its own.

Not permitted: a fixed rent-to-income ratio, refusing an applicant because they receive public assistance, asking the age of the applicant or their children, asking whether someone is pregnant, asking about immigration status, and requiring "stable long-term employment."

Credit checks are fine when applied equally to every applicant. The trap is what you do with the result — no credit history is not bad credit. Refusing a newcomer or a young applicant for a thin file is discrimination on place of origin, citizenship or age. Accept the alternatives: an employment letter, bank statements, foreign references, an offer of prepayment.

Guarantors are permitted where credit or rental information is genuinely unavailable or poor. Requiring one automatically from anyone on social assistance is discrimination.

Advertising language to remove

Every one of these appears in Canadian rental listings weekly, and every one creates exposure.

• Adults only, adult lifestyle, not suitable for children
• Suitable for a single person or couple
• Working professionals only, no students
• No DSS, no OW, no ODSP, no subsidy
• Must show three times the rent
• Canadian credit history required
• Ideal for a mature couple
• No pets, in Ontario

Write the listing about the unit, not about who you picture in it.

Adults-only buildings

Ontario: unlawful. There is no defence permitting adult lifestyle housing where the effect is excluding children. The exemptions are narrow — housing for people 65 and over, barrier-free housing designed for older people with disabilities, and institutional housing for older persons.

British Columbia: unlawful on family status. The Code expressly permits buildings reserved for 55 and over.

Alberta: age was added to tenancy protection effective January 1, 2018. Seniors-only housing sets an age minimum, and age-restricted condominiums predating 2018 were grandfathered until December 31, 2032.

Pets and service animals

Ontario voids no-pet clauses outright under section 14 of the Residential Tenancies Act — the clause is unenforceable the moment it is signed. Pet ownership on its own is not a ground for eviction. You need a separate ground: damage, a serious allergy affecting another occupant, a dangerous animal, or a condominium declaration.

BC and Alberta enforce no-pet clauses. BC also allows a pet damage deposit.

Service animals are different everywhere. A certified guide dog or service dog under BC's Guide Dog and Service Dog Act must be permitted, including in strata buildings with pet bans. Alberta's Service Dogs Act works the same way for qualified service dogs.

An uncertified assistance or emotional support animal falls under the duty to accommodate disability rather than a service animal statute. Outcomes turn on the medical evidence and are inconsistent. Ask for documentation, take the request seriously, and get advice before refusing.

The duty to accommodate

You must accommodate a disability-related need to the point of undue hardship. The test looks at three things: cost, outside sources of funding, and health and safety.

Three things are not undue hardship: inconvenience, other tenants' preferences, and your own preference.

Practical examples: allowing an assistance animal in a no-pet building, reserving an accessible parking stall, permitting a ramp, grab bars, lever handles or a visual doorbell, moving a tenant to a ground-floor unit when one opens, shifting the rent due date to line up with benefit payment dates, and accepting notices by a different method for a tenant who cannot manage the standard one.

Who pays: you bear accommodation costs up to undue hardship. In practice, removing a barrier you created is your cost. Elective or cosmetic modifications a tenant requests are often tenant-funded under a restoration agreement. The allocation is not codified in any of the three statutes, so put the arrangement in writing.

What it costs to get wrong

Remedies include general damages for injury to dignity, reimbursement of moving costs and rent differentials, orders to rent or reinstate, and policy and training orders.

BC Human Rights Tribunal housing awards have historically run from about $1,100 to $35,000. *Biggings* awarded $35,000 where a landlord refused to build a ramp for a tenant with ALS. In 2026, *Lloyd v. Almeida (No. 2)* awarded $60,000 for injury to dignity alone, on facts involving a lockout, heat shut-offs and surveillance of a senior with disabilities, with total awards near $100,000.

Ontario tribunal injury-to-dignity awards in housing commonly land between $10,000 and $25,000, with the broader range running $5,000 to $50,000.

A screening process built to survive review

Write your criteria down before you advertise. Apply them to every applicant in the same order. Record what you collected and the reason for the decision. Keep applications for a year.

Consistency is the whole defence. A landlord who applies the same process to everyone and writes down why they chose the applicant they chose is in a strong position. A landlord deciding case by case from memory is not.

LuxOasisOS runs one standard application form into one inbox, with the same fields and the same record for every applicant, so screening is consistent by construction.