Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has, since 1975, prohibited using certain criteria to refuse housing to a candidate. Yet many owners — often out of habit, sometimes ignorance — still use those criteria. The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ) regularly receives complaints, and sanctions can reach several thousand dollars.
This article covers it all: what the law says, the most common pitfalls, how to phrase your qualifying questions impeccably, and the method we apply at AA Location to stay rigorously objective across hundreds of files.
What does the Quebec Charter actually say?
Article 10 of the Quebec Charter prohibits discrimination based on the following grounds — fully applicable to housing (article 12):
- Race
- Colour
- Sex
- Gender identity or expression
- Pregnancy
- Sexual orientation
- Civil status
- Age (except as provided by law — i.e., majority)
- Religion
- Political beliefs
- Language
- Ethnic or national origin
- Social condition
- Handicap or use of a means to compensate for it
The most common pitfalls (often unintentional)
Pitfall 1 — Targeted listings
'Ideal for young couple', 'prefer mature person', 'perfect for quiet student', 'quiet family welcome': all these seemingly innocuous phrases target civil status, age, family situation — all protected by the Charter.
Pitfall 2 — Disguised personal questions
'Are you married?', 'Are you planning to have children?', 'Where are you originally from?', 'Are you religious?': asking these questions, even out of curiosity or small talk, exposes you to a complaint if the candidate is later refused.
Pitfall 3 — The mental 'ideal profile'
Many owners have an 'ideal profile' formed by past experiences — a type of person they prefer as tenant. This mental profile is often steeped in protected criteria (age, family status, etc.) without anyone realizing.
The only antidote: apply the same objective grid to all candidates, without letting 'feel' override data. If multiple candidates pass the objective criteria, the final decision is the owner's — but it must remain traceable and defensible.
Pitfall 4 — Refusing a candidate 'because we don't feel it'
'Feel' is not an objective criterion. Refusing a candidate without documented motive, while they pass all objective criteria, can be interpreted as disguised discrimination — especially if you then accept another candidate with a comparable file.
If you have multiple finalists and must choose, base your decision on documented objective elements (slightly higher payment capacity, stronger references, more stable rental duration). Not on the impression from the meeting.
Pitfall 5 — Default mistrust toward certain profiles
Students, newcomers, young professionals, social-assistance recipients: all can be excellent tenants. Systematically refusing these profiles without objective evaluation — or asking disproportionate conditions (mandatory co-signer for students only, for example) — is indirect discrimination.
The flawless objective grid
Here are the only criteria a Quebec owner or agency can use to evaluate a candidate. They are all objective, measurable, and defensible.
| Legitimate criterion | How to measure | Why it's objective |
|---|---|---|
| Payment capacity | Rent/net income ratio, credit verification | Quantified, document-backed |
| File seriousness | Documents provided, completeness, consistency | Observable, comparable |
| Prior-landlord references | Phone validation, land-registry cross-check | Verifiable, context known |
| Rental history | Free TAL search, average lease duration | Public, factual |
| Employment or income stability | HR letter, paystubs, tax notice | Documented, dated |
| Consent to verifications | Signed form | Voluntary act of the candidate |
How to document a decision (essential)
In case of a CDPDJ complaint, the defence rests entirely on documentation. If you can't show why you refused a candidate on objective criteria, you're vulnerable — even if the decision was in good faith.
- Keep all written exchanges (emails, SMS) with every candidate
- Document verifications performed (credit report, references called, TAL search)
- Briefly note, per candidate, the unmet objective criterion or the criterion where another candidate scored better
- Keep these files for at least 24 months after the decision
The role of professional support
A specialized placement agency applies the objective grid to ALL files, by method and training. This legally protects the owner — the final decision is always theirs, but it rests on rigorous, documented, and defensible upstream evaluation.
At AA Location, our OACIQ real-estate brokers frame both selection (objective criteria only) and lease signing (Quebec legal framework respected). It's this double rigour — operational and legal — that durably protects the owner.
If a CDPDJ complaint comes: what to do?
If you receive a CDPDJ letter informing you of a complaint:
- 1Don't panic — many complaints are dismissed after review
- 2Immediately gather the file documentation (exchanges, verifications, objective refusal motive)
- 3Don't respond publicly or on social media
- 4Consult a legal advisor or your OACIQ broker to structure the response
- 5Respond to the CDPDJ within deadlines with factual reasoning
Good upstream documentation makes this process much less stressful. It's the strongest argument for a systematically documented objective grid.