Denying housing based on religion violates the Ontario Human Rights Code.

When you’re thinking about Ontario’s laws, housing feels like a simple, everyday thing—rent a place, sign a lease, live your life. But it’s actually a web of rules designed to protect people from unfair treatment. Let me walk you through a common scenario and show how the law does its job.

The scenario you might see in a study guide (or a real-life situation) goes like this: If someone is denied an apartment because of their religious beliefs, which law is violated? The options often look like this:

• A. Criminal Code of Canada section 223(1)

• B. Human Rights Code

• C. Residential Tenancies Act

• D. Ontario Religious Priority Act

Here’s the thing: the correct answer is B, the Human Rights Code. Let me explain why that one stands out, and why the others don’t fit the same way.

What the Human Rights Code actually protects

Ontario’s Human Rights Code is all about fairness in how people are treated in key areas of daily life. Housing is one of those areas. The code says you can’t be refused housing or treated unfavorably because of protected characteristics. Religion is one of those protected grounds, alongside things like race, gender, disability, age, and more.

So, when someone is denied an apartment specifically because of their religious beliefs, that’s discrimination. It’s a direct hit on the principle that people should be evaluated as individuals, not judged by who they are or what they believe. The code creates a pathway to challenge that treatment and seek remedies.

Why the other options don’t fit as neatly

• Criminal Code of Canada, section 223(1) — This part of the law deals with causing bodily harm or endangering someone. It’s about safety and criminal actions, not about housing discrimination. So it’s not the right tool for a case like being refused housing on the basis of religion.

• Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) — This law governs the landlord-tenant relationship: rents, leases, evictions, and how disputes are handled. It does set some protections for tenants, but it doesn’t directly address discrimination in housing on grounds like religion in the way the Human Rights Code does. There can be overlaps, but the core anti-discrimination framework sits under the Human Rights Code, not the RTA.

• Ontario Religious Priority Act — There actually isn’t a law by that name in Ontario. It’s a helpful reminder that not every potential-sounding statute exists, and it’s the code that really covers this kind of discrimination in housing.

Why this distinction matters in the real world

Discrimination can creep in quietly. A landlord might claim there’s a “no pets” rule or a “no smoking” policy, and you can see it as a cover for bias. Or a landlord might steer away from applicants who wear a visible religious symbol or who come from a particular faith network. When the reason for denial is tied to religion, that’s where the Human Rights Code kicks in.

The code isn’t a single hammer that fixes everything overnight. It’s more like a framework that guides fair treatment, remedies, and accountability. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) oversees these protections, and if someone feels they were treated unfairly because of religion, they can raise the issue with the OHRC or, in many cases, with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). The process can involve mediation, investigations, and, if needed, formal hearings.

What a housing-discrimination case looks like in practice

Think of it as a pattern you’d want to recognize in the field of security and property management. A person is offered housing under seemingly ordinary terms, then later told they’re not being considered because of their religion. The pattern is more important than the specific anecdote: a protected characteristic is the root cause of the treatment, and the impact is exclusion from housing and services.

If you’re handling the situation, you’d want clear, factual documentation:

• What was said, when, and by whom

• Any written communications (emails, messages, notice letters)

• The exact terms of the housing offer and the reasons given for any denial

• Any policies or bylaws that were cited, and whether they apply equally to everyone

• Evidence of how others were treated in similar situations, if applicable

The remedy can range from a remedy of non-discrimination to compensation or changes in policy. It’s not about punishment alone; it’s about making the system fair so similar situations don’t occur again.

A quick note for security-minded folks

If you work in roles that touch housing, tenant screening, or facility access, this is more than a legal footnote. Security and access-control decisions must be fair and inclusive. A biased policy isn’t just wrong; it’s a risk to your organization—reputational risk, legal risk, and the possibility of costly disputes. The right approach is to design screening and access procedures that treat everyone equally, documentable and consistent, with the ability to explain decisions in a rational, non-discriminatory way.

Here are a few practical guardrails:

• Use objective criteria for screening, like income stability or credit history, but ensure those criteria aren’t tied to protected characteristics.

• Train staff to recognize bias and to document decisions thoroughly.

• Provide a clear window for applicants to ask questions or appeal a decision.

• Have a transparent process for complaints and a way to escalate concerns to the appropriate authorities.

If you suspect bias is at play, flag it early. Don’t wait for a dispute to swirl; address it with empathy, accuracy, and by following the established channels.

What to do if you think you’ve encountered discrimination

If you or someone you know believes they’ve been denied housing because of religion, you’ve got options:

• Start by documenting everything. Dates, names, what was said, and any competing explanations.

• Contact the Ontario Human Rights Commission to understand the steps and options. They can guide you on how to proceed and what evidence will help.

• Consider the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario if the matter isn’t resolved through initial discussions. HRTO hearings can be a path to remedies, including compensation or policy changes.

• Seek legal advice or assistance from community legal clinics if you need support navigating the process.

It’s not just about solving one case; it’s about strengthening fair treatment across housing, services, and work. For many people, these protections aren’t abstract; they’re how you build a place where people feel welcome and safe.

Where to look for reliable information in Ontario

If you want to dig deeper (in a practical, no-nonsense way), these sources are solid starting points:

• Ontario Human Rights Commission website — a practical hub for understanding what the code protects and how to file a complaint.

• Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — details on the adjudication process, timelines, and what remedies can look like.

• Community legal clinics or legal aid resources in Ontario — free or low-cost guidance for individuals navigating discrimination claims.

• Local tenant advocacy groups or housing services — they can help with awareness and practical steps to ensure fair treatment in tenancy decisions.

The big picture: fair treatment is good for everyone

Discrimination in housing isn’t just a personal injustice; it’s a systemic risk. When bias slips into decisions about who gets a home, it destabilizes communities and undermines trust in the institutions that should protect us. The Human Rights Code’s protections aren’t a theoretical ideal—they’re a practical framework that helps keep housing accessible and fair, which in turn supports safer, stronger neighborhoods.

If you’re in a role that intersects with housing, property management, or security, keep this in mind: fair processes protect people and protect your organization. The law is there to guide decisions, and it’s flexible enough to adapt as our communities grow more diverse. Good judgment isn’t about clever loopholes; it’s about clear, consistent, respectful treatment of every person who walks through the door.

In closing, the correct answer to the scenario—who’s protected from discrimination in housing?—is the Human Rights Code. Religion is one of the protected grounds, and denial of housing on that basis is a violation. The other options don’t address housing discrimination in the same way, either because they focus on other matters (like bodily harm) or simply aren’t applicable laws in Ontario.

If you ever find yourself explaining this to someone else, you can keep it plain: housing should be about suitability, not beliefs. The law helps us keep it that way, and that’s a win for fairness, safety, and the kind of communities we want to build.