Tenant Candidate Comparator — side-by-side
Compare 2 to 3 tenant files on the same grid of objective criteria: payment capacity, file, references, history, stability, consent. Automatic ranking, per-criterion leader, with no Charter-protected data ever requested.
Objective-criteria comparison only — Quebec Charter compliant
The six criteria are allowed under article 10 of the Quebec Charter: payment capacity, file, references, history, income stability, and consent. No protected criterion is ever asked. Income source does not affect the score — only stability counts. The owner always keeps the final decision.
Internal label — never use a protected attribute
Internal label — never use a protected attribute
Enter rent and net income for at least 2 candidates to run the comparison.
Methodology
How the comparison works
Each candidate is evaluated on the same 6 criteria, with the same weights — the exact grid of the Tenant Profile Score tool. The comparison adds two dimensions: a ranking by overall score and a per-criterion leader.
Payment capacity
30%Rent-to-net-income ratio. The single most predictive criterion.
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 search (public registry) and average tenancy duration.
Income stability
15%Time in current source. The SOURCE is never weighted.
Verification consent
5%Without written consent, the evaluation remains partial — the table flags it.
Go further
Deepen objective selection
Everything to know about file comparison and Charter/CDPDJ compliance.
Comparing tenant candidates without discriminating — the defensible method
When 2 or 3 files look equivalent, how do you decide without risking a CDPDJ complaint? Objective 6-criterion method, defensible documentation, and legal tie-breaker rules.
5 objective criteria for picking the right tenant in Quebec
In Quebec, tenant selection must rest on objective criteria only. Here are the 5 criteria that make the difference — and the list of those you can never use.
How to avoid discrimination in tenant selection in Quebec
Quebec's Charter forbids certain selection criteria. Here's the complete list, the most common (often unintentional) pitfalls, and the method to stay fully compliant with the Charter and CDPDJ guidelines.
Tenant payment capacity: how to evaluate it correctly
Rent-to-income ratio, documents to analyze, special cases (students, self-employed, newcomers) and the co-signer option — without falling into discrimination.
Frequently asked questions
Practical answers for tenants and owners across Greater Montreal.
- Why compare candidates on the same grid?
- Because that's what makes your decision defensible. A decision documented on the same objective criteria for every candidate is defensible in case of a CDPDJ complaint. Without a uniform grid, the choice rests on intuition — which opens the door to involuntary bias and discrimination claims, even when intent is good.
- Which criteria does this tool NEVER ask for?
- No Charter-protected criterion: origin, race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age (except legal majority), religion, political beliefs, native language, disability, social condition (including income source). The tool requests none of these and produces no trail that could be interpreted as discriminatory.
- Why isn't the highest-income candidate always ranked first?
- Because the score combines 6 criteria, not 1. A candidate with comfortable income but zero validated references and a recent TAL judgment may very well score lower than a mid-income candidate with 2 validated references and 5 years in the same unit. Income alone doesn't predict tenant reliability — capacity + references + history together does it much better.
- Does the 'leader by criterion' tell me who to pick?
- No. The leader by criterion is a signal — it tells you who is strongest on each dimension. But the final decision combines the overall score, your risk tolerance, and any other documented objective factor. For example, you might prefer a candidate at 72/100 with immediate written consent over a candidate at 78/100 whose credit verification is still pending.
- What if all candidates show moderate risk?
- Three legally valid options: (1) require a strong co-signer or guarantor, (2) require the maximum legal deposit (first month's rent), (3) re-list to enlarge the candidate pool. Refusing all files without a documented alternative is risky — and that's exactly when a professional placement service avoids the time loss and legal risk.
- How many candidates can I compare at once?
- The tool accepts 2 to 3 candidates simultaneously. Intentionally: beyond 3, the comparison loses visual clarity and the decision becomes confused. Our placement service pre-selects exactly 2 to 3 quality files — the optimal decision zone for most owners.
- Does this tool replace a professional verification?
- No. It's a structured comparison tool — not actual verification. Real verification involves: Equifax/TransUnion credit report (with written consent), phone calls to prior landlords, TAL registry search, employment validation with the employer. Our service includes all of that systematically and presents you 2 to 3 files ready to compare.
AA Location — Professional pre-selection
Get 2-3 fully verified files pre-selected
Equifax/TransUnion credit, validated references, TAL search, employment validation — for every candidate, with written consent. You then compare the best files and choose. Lease signing coordinated by an OACIQ broker.