Tenant selection starts with marketing and ends with a decision. The most critical phase in between is comparing finalist candidates. That's exactly the moment when involuntary biases come into play — unconscious preference for a familiar name, vague discomfort with an atypical file, the 'I just feel better about this one' instinct. All these signals are human, but none are defensible before the Quebec human-rights commission (CDPDJ).
Good news: there's a reproducible method that turns selection into a documented, defensible exercise. This article details that method, step by step, with a 6-criterion grid 100% compliant with the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The 6 objective criteria allowed under the Charter
Article 10 of the Quebec Charter prohibits any distinction based on 14 protected grounds. But it allows — and even encourages — distinctions based on objective criteria related to the capacity to fulfill the lease. Here's the 6-criterion defensible grid:
| Criterion | Recommended weight | What you evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Payment capacity | 30% | Rent / monthly net income ratio. Below 30% = excellent; 30-35% = acceptable; > 40% = high risk. |
| File seriousness | 15% | Documents provided: ID, income proof, employer letter, reference contacts. |
| References | 20% | At least one prior-landlord reference validated by phone. |
| Rental history | 15% | TAL registry search (free, public) + average tenancy duration in prior units. |
| Income stability | 15% | Time in CURRENT income source (regardless of the nature of the source). |
| Verification consent | 5% | Written agreement for credit verification. Without it, evaluation is partial. |
The 14 protected grounds — NEVER to be used
Article 10 of the Charter protects these 14 grounds. No rental decision can be based — even partially, even implicitly — on any of them:
- Race, colour, ethnic or national origin
- Sex, gender identity or expression
- Pregnancy
- Sexual orientation
- Civil status (married, single, divorced, common-law)
- Age (except legal majority required to sign a lease)
- Religion or political beliefs
- Native language
- Social condition (including income source)
- Disability or use of a means to overcome that disability
- Presence or number of children
Step-by-step method to compare 2 or 3 files
Step 1 — Prepare an IDENTICAL empty grid for everyone
Before even receiving the files, create a simple grid (paper, spreadsheet, or online tool) with the 6 criteria and their weights. Print one per candidate. Golden rule: the grid exists BEFORE the files, not after.
Step 2 — Fill the grid for each candidate using the SAME sources
- Verify income with the same documents (last 3 paystubs or tax notice)
- Call the same types of references (prior landlords, never employer alone)
- Run a TAL search for every candidate (public, free registry)
- Request the same written credit-verification consent
Step 3 — Compute the weighted score for each file
Each criterion gives a sub-score out of 100. Multiply by the weight and sum. The total gives an objective ranking.
Step 4 — Identify the per-criterion leader (the tie-breaker)
When 2 files have very close totals (gap < 5 points), look at who leads on each individual criterion. The candidate who leads on 4 of 6 criteria is generally stronger, even if the global score is slightly lower.
Step 5 — Document the written refusal reason
To unsuccessful candidates, send a short written response that mentions ONLY objective criteria: 'The selected file showed a lower rent-to-income ratio and longer employment stability. Thank you for your interest.' That's enough for defense in case of a complaint.
The most common scenario: 2 equivalent files
What to do when two candidates have an identical total score (e.g., 78/100 each)? The legally defensible method:
- 1Compare per-criterion leadership — the candidate who leads on the MOST individual criteria.
- 2If perfectly tied, compare the quality of 'Payment capacity' — lowest ratio (greatest margin) wins.
- 3Still tied? 'References' breaks it: 2 validated references beats 1 validated.
- 4'Rental history' (avg tenancy duration) can serve as the last tie-breaker.
- 5If all 4 tie-breakers above give a perfect tie (extremely rare), the FIRST candidate to have signed the full consent legitimately gets priority.
How many candidates should you compare?
Selection is more efficient with 2 or 3 finalists than 30 raw applications. Beyond 3 simultaneously compared files, the decision becomes confused and unconscious biases take over.
| Number of finalists | Advantage | Drawback |
|---|---|---|
| 1 (no comparison) | Quick decision | No reference to validate — pressure to accept by default |
| 2 finalists | Easy comparison, simple tie-breaker | No plan B if both refuse |
| 3 finalists | Solid coverage, nuanced choice | More pre-selection time required |
| 4+ finalists | Paralyzing over-choice | Confusion, biases take over |
Fatal mistakes to avoid
- 1Evaluating files in arrival order — anchoring bias. Always evaluate each file completely BEFORE comparing.
- 2Asking additional information from only one candidate — potential discrimination. If you ask, ask EVERYONE.
- 3Keeping a complete grid for only one candidate — proof of unequal treatment.
- 4Refusing without written reason — no defense if a CDPDJ complaint is filed.
- 5Mentioning a protected criterion in the reason ('we wanted someone more mature', 'we prefer a couple', etc.).
- 6Not keeping completed grids for at least 3 years — CDPDJ complaint statute is 2 years.
- 7Holding the decision orally only, without written record.
What if ALL candidates are moderate-risk?
Three legally valid options, in this order:
- 1Require a co-signer or strong guarantor from EVERY candidate. If only one accepts, that one moves forward.
- 2Require the maximum legal deposit (first month's rent) from EVERYONE — it can't be imposed selectively.
- 3Re-list to expand the pool (re-advertise 2 weeks, slightly lower the rent if necessary).
Documentary trail to keep for 3 years
For every selection process, keep:
- The published listing (proof it contained no discriminatory criterion)
- Anonymized list of all candidates received (with their application dates)
- Completed grid for each finalist (on the 6 objective criteria)
- Weighted score calculation for each finalist
- Written reason for the final choice, exclusively based on objective criteria
- Email or letter responses sent to non-selected candidates
- Written credit-verification consent of the chosen candidate
- Equifax/TransUnion credit report or its summary
The OACIQ broker's advantage in the comparison
An OACIQ-regulated real estate broker brings three decisive elements:
- 1Systematic application of the grid — every file is evaluated under the same protocol, without the owner's unconscious bias.
- 2Compliant documentation — all communications with refused candidates respect the legal framework and are archived defensibly.
- 3Coordinated lease signing — a lease signed in the presence of an OACIQ broker adds an extra level of legal certainty around documentary compliance.