Deaf feel burned by tenant discrimination: Advocates

[furtado_4real]

The point landlords here don't want to talk about is she was zero for thirty! Stop trying to divert attention away from this!

Except that it is only her side. We do not know all of the variables, we do not know the whole story.

Why is the attention diverted from the fact that she was also saying she wanted to rent for $500? I am certain that is the main reason (she also probably wanted all-inclusive for that $500). So if I email the BMW dealership and tell them I want a 50k BMW for $30k - oh and BTW I am deaf... should I say I am being discriminated against when none of them email me back?

[Robinrta]

What part of this do you not understand?

She didn’t get a single response until she removed the word “deaf” from her message.

[Ken S]

Her demands were unreasonable...thats why she didn`t get a call back. She most likely removed other demands.

[Skitter]

OK.............lets suppose the ONLY reason she did not get a call back WAS because she was hearing impaired.

And I caution everyone here that we do NOT have all the facts and do NOT know for certain why she was not called back.

But for the sake of discussion...............lets suppose her disabilty was the ONLY reason she was not replied to.

If an ontario landlord accepted her as a tenant, that landlord would have a "duty to accomodate" her, to the point of the landlord's personal financial hardship (bankruptcy). The Ontario human rights commission's recent housing policy requires this.

One of the accomodations the landlord would have to make, is to install fire alarms with visible activation lights. These detectors would probably have to be installed in every room in her apt.

Further to this, I would expect these special fire alarms would have to be installed in all the common areas the tenant might occupy, including all floors of the apt building, locker rooms, laundry room and underground parking.

Obviously these alrams cant simply be installed by a "weekend elctrician".

Engineering drawings will have to be made in order to get a permit from the city.

The alarms will have to be purchased (and they wont be cheap).

A licensed electrician will have to install them.

An inspector will have to approve the installation.

The visible alarms will have to be tested and maintained yearly, even once the tenant has left.

The cost for this accomodation could easily be over $10,000........(yes thats right!)

In return the landlord will be accomodating a tenant who wants to pay $500 a month rent.

Activists, the OHRC and others can argue that this is the cost of the landlord doing business, the landlord should budget for these 'accomodations", the "improvements" will enhance the value of the property ect...............but these arguments are weak at best.

The reality is few small landlords have the financial ability to meet the "duty to accomodate" as they are already often living cheque to cheque with little or no extra money left over.

In my mind, barbara hall and others at the OHRC have made thier policy to "accomodate" in a vacum.

They have ignored the facts of small landlords.

The result is we simply cant afford to accept tenants who require expensive accomodation.