Amoako v. Truong, 2022 HRTO 902

The applicant was a third-year university student looking for an apartment to rent from the respondent, a landlord. The respondent arranged for the applicant to view the apartment.

The applicant testified that she called the respondent the following day while she was on her way to see the unit. She alleged the landlord asked for her ethnicity and she responded: “African Canadian.” He then told her the room was no longer available. When she asked why, he said he had previously had a bad experience with Black people and it was ‘nothing personal.’

The respondent acknowledged he asked the applicant what her background was but denied asking her what her ethnicity was and claimed that the applicant voluntarily told him she was of African descent. The respondent claimed he texted her the address and agreed to show her the unit knowing she was Black. The respondent and a witness both testified that during the process of rescheduling a viewing for the applicant, someone else had been shown the room and put down a deposit.

The HRTO found that the respondent did ask the applicant about her ethnicity but accepted the respondent’s testimony that the unit had already been rented by his mother before the applicant had the opportunity to view the unit. The HRTO still found, however, that the applicant’s race was a factor in the decision not to rent the room to her.

The HRTO awarded the applicant:

  • $2,000 in general damage for the violation of her rights under the Code.