Reprisal (Landlord and Tenant Relationship)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-02-24
CLNP Page ID:	2465
Page Categories:	Human Rights
Citation:	Reprisal (Landlord and Tenant Relationship), CLNP 2465, <>, retrieved on 2025-02-24
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2025/02/04

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19

Reprisals

8 Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 (CanLII)

[33] Thus, in a complaint or application alleging reprisal, the following elements must be established:

a. An action taken against, or threat made to, the complainant;

b. The alleged action or threat is related to the complainant having claimed, or attempted to enforce a right under the Code; and

c. An intention on the part of the respondent to retaliate for the claim or attempt to enforce the right.

[34] In addition, the following principles are relevant:

a. There is no strict requirement that the complainant has filed a complaint or application under the Code, and

b. There is no requirement that the Tribunal find the respondent did in fact violate the complainant’s substantive rights to be free from discrimination.

Gricken v. Andriano, 2017 HRTO 698 (CanLII)

[58] Landlords are in a position of power over tenants. They approve the lease and can affect the use and enjoyment of the tenant’s home life with respect to how they interact with the tenant, how promptly they respond to requests, and by their power to issue eviction notices. This power dynamic colours the relationship between a landlord and a tenant and must be carefully considered in assessing whether the landlord’s conduct amounts to harassment under the Code. See <i<Kertesz v. Bellair Property Management, 2007 HRTO 38 at para. 34.

(...)

[67] I find that the respondent reprised against the applicant for filing the Application by threatening to evict her and giving her groundless eviction notices, refusing to maintain her apartment in a state of repair, and vandalizing her bike. I note that some incidents, such as refusing to maintain the apartment in a state of repair, may have occurred both prior to and after the filing of the Application. However, it appears that the respondent’s acrimonious attitude toward the applicant intensified after she filed the Application and I find that the respondent intentionally retaliated against the applicant for pursuing an Application before the Tribunal.

Hill-LeClair v. Booth, 2009 HRTO 1629 (CanLII)

[39] Courts and tribunals have long recognized that sexual harassment is more than an affront to dignity; it is an abuse of power: Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. (1989), 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6205 (SCC); Sanford v. Koop (2005), HRTO 53. Landlords are in a position of unique authority over their tenants, especially in a shared living setting. They control the use and enjoyment of the tenant’s home life and wield the ultimate power to evict—in some instances, like this one, summarily.

Ramnarine-Smith v. Havcare Investments Inc., 2018 HRTO 878 (CanLII)

[40] The respondents’ application to the LTB was eventually withdrawn, but the applicants were required to take steps to prove that the rent had been paid and experienced the stresses associated with possibly losing their home. Both applicants testified that they believed that this was yet another attempt by the respondents to drive them out of the building.