Would you consider fully vaxxed tenant only moving forward

I wonder what would happen if the advertisement was modified as follows:

"Rent: ($real market rate)
Discount: $50/month if proof of vaccination provided"

A little like those workplaces that gave cash bonuses to workers who got vaccines.


Rationale: owner wants to limit his risk when conducting viewings, annual inspections, repair supervision, etc.


(I grant that recent evidence seems to show that vaccines protect the recipient but don't eliminate transmission)

I think right now would be a great time to be a lawyer that deals with 'human rights' type of cases. They are going to be making HUGE $$$ regardless of how the courts rule!

My guess is that vaccination status is not one of your protected human rights, so if someone doesn’t want to rent to you because of it, there’s not much you (as a tenant) can do about it.

But combined with that, you (as a tenant) have a right to private medical information, and I doubt that the LTB would issue an eviction based on your vaccination status.

Kind of like having a pet. The landlord can ask you if you have a pet, and can chose not to rent to a tenant if they say they do. But if the tenant lies, and moves in with a Great Dane on day 1, there’s nothing the landlord can do about it other than monitor for damage and complaints by other tenants.

C

CNeufeld wrote: ↑ My guess is that vaccination status is not one of your protected human rights, so if someone doesn’t want to rent to you because of it, there’s not much you (as a tenant) can do about it.

But combined with that, you (as a tenant) have a right to private medical information, and I doubt that the LTB would issue an eviction based on your vaccination status.

Kind of like having a pet. The landlord can ask you if you have a pet, and can chose not to rent to a tenant if they say they do. But if the tenant lies, and moves in with a Great Dane on day 1, there’s nothing the landlord can do about it other than monitor for damage and complaints by other tenants.

C

I'm not so sure, if you medically cannot get the vaccine or medical procedures are against your religion your rights would have to be protected, wouldn't they?

It'll be interesting to see the first case make its way thru the courts.

You are right though, a tenant can just lie about it and the landlord cannot ask for proof.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ I'm not so sure, if you medically cannot get the vaccine or medical procedures are against your religion your rights would have to be protected, wouldn't they?

It'll be interesting to see the first case make its way thru the courts.

You are right though, a tenant can just lie about it and the landlord cannot ask for proof.

Well, both a landlord and employer if they give a prospective applicant any reason for declining them. You can’t make things any better, and you can only make things worse. So if you ask someone if they’re vaccinated and they dodge the question or give the wrong answer, a landlord would be an idiot to say anything other than “thank you for your application, but we’ve selected another tenant”. They should even avoid indicating if they’re pro or anti vaccination.

Personally, I think it would be a mentally questionable landlord who asked the question in the first place, unless they’re sharing the space with the tenant. And if I was a tenant, I’d avoid a landlord who pried into my status without a damn good reason, because they’ll probably try to control other aspects of my life that I’d prefer to take care of myself.

C

If anything people who are fully vexxed are pure sheeps . So I wouldn't want them since they are probably Karens.

johnnyepy666 wrote: ↑ If anything people who are fully vexxed are pure sheeps . So I wouldn't want them since they are probably Karens.

Don't feed the trolls people.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ I'm not so sure, if you medically cannot get the vaccine or medical procedures are against your religion your rights would have to be protected, wouldn't they?

It'll be interesting to see the first case make its way thru the courts.

You are right though, a tenant can just lie about it and the landlord cannot ask for proof.

It's a conundrum, but yes they would probably be protected under either of those rights. But it will come down to the balance of rights and whether or not the landlord had the right to ask.

If say the landlord is sharing a bathroom or kitchen with the tenant the landlord may be well within their right to ask for their own health risk if the tenant is vaccinated. Since though the threat to a landlord can only be from an unvaccinated person, they likely won't get away with refusing a vaccinated tenant. And if the unit is a stand alone, the landlord has no right to ask at all on behalf of the four walls.

Saw this last week, was reminded about it over the weekend.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board ... ector.html

Considering the feds are mandating vaccinations for federal employees, not sure they would be eager to prosecute a landlord for requiring it of a tenant. And there’s also a plan to require it of all commercial air/rail/sea travellers. There’s obviously a difference between being stuck in a can with wings vs being alone in your own home, but it’s a landlords property as well. And the feds do have procedures coming down for people who are medically exempt (which would be few), but no word on religious exemptions.

Basically, the unvaccinated are progressing to second class citizens. Won’t be able to go to concerts, work, travel in the not so distant future.

C

Pretty slippery slope here, if you are required to provide what should be private medical information.

The politicians have been happy to push this dividing society for their own benefit. The more divided the people are fighting with each other, the less time they have to see them spending us into oblivion.

cartfan123 wrote: ↑ Pretty slippery slope here, if you are required to provide what should be private medical information.

The politicians have been happy to push this dividing society for their own benefit. The more divided the people are fighting with each other, the less time they have to see them spending us into oblivion.

This is KEY and voters should be very cautious of who they vote for. Some people are quick to fall for the tactics used to divide populations and those who start condemning those on the other side of any issue are only doing the dirty work of those same politicians. If more people could see what is happening, they could join together and understand that it is the politicians who are often the true opposition. Before viewing someone you disagree with as your opponent, I would suggest thinking a bit deeper to identify who made you feel this way and who stands to benefit? Trust me, it is not us. We are just the peasant class. Don't get played. We have more in common with the other peasants than we do anyone else. We should not break the golden rule and when politicians are asking us to do this, question their motives first.

It's interesting. Of course we all have a right to privacy, but I've seen the point made that you can keep that right but have no associated right to attend a concert, work at a particular company, enter a business etc. The old adage is you have the freedom to swing your fist, as long as it doesnt hit someone's nose.

Having said that, maybe a home is different? Maybe we do have a right to shelter? I guess that's for lawyers and courts to decide.

All I know is, before this, many jobs required medical info to be shared, schools required vaccines, heck even the old no shirt no shoes no entry didn't seem to cause freedom seekers to protest. Now suddenly everyone thinks they have a right to go for coffee wherever they want. Maybe they do, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ I don't believe so as there are already religions exceptions for other vaccines and you cannot discriminate on religions grounds. There will be a legal challenge in the end to sort it out.

This in itself is a load of crap and needs to stop too.

teedomo88 wrote: ↑ This in itself is a load of crap and needs to stop too.

While I agree with you, the freedom to follow one's religion is a pretty basic human right. You cannot force a medical procedure on a jehovah’s witness and a vaccine injection is a medical procedure.

AGAIN, I agree with you that medical exceptions are given out far too often.

teedomo88 wrote: ↑ This in itself is a load of crap and needs to stop too.

This is what's involved with at least one Health Board in Ontario to get an exemption to vaccinations for children (not COVID, but other vaccines).
https://www.porcupinehu.on.ca/en/your-h ... nizations/

It's not a matter of simply stating "It's against my beliefs to get toxins injected in my body", and that's been the case for years. There's no reason to believe COVID will be treated any differently. If someone's going to try to "game the system" by claiming an exemption, they're going to have to work for it. I'm sure there's been legal challenges to this, and so far, it appears to be holding. And that seems the system is working the way that it was intended. If you don't want a vaccine for you or your children, that's your choice. But there's a list of implications that go along with that choice.

C

There is a term that always applies - "For the good of the people"

In the HRC specifically it means:

(2) The Tribunal or a court shall not find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 11 (2); 1994, c. 27, s. 65 (1); 2002, c. 18, Sched. C, s. 2 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 35 (1).

It is a measure of balance.

To give someone who say has leprosy or TB or Ebola or measles the right to fly on commercial aircraft with others is to deny the right to a safe environment for the others.

The landlord renting out a stand alone unit isn't going to have much luck claiming it's a health or safety issue.

GTA12345 wrote: ↑ It's interesting. Of course we all have a right to privacy, but I've seen the point made that you can keep that right but have no associated right to attend a concert, work at a particular company, enter a business etc. The old adage is you have the freedom to swing your fist, as long as it doesnt hit someone's nose.

Having said that, maybe a home is different? Maybe we do have a right to shelter? I guess that's for lawyers and courts to decide.

All I know is, before this, many jobs required medical info to be shared, schools required vaccines, heck even the old no shirt no shoes no entry didn't seem to cause freedom seekers to protest. Now suddenly everyone thinks they have a right to go for coffee wherever they want. Maybe they do, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ While I agree with you, the freedom to follow one's religion is a pretty basic human right. You cannot force a medical procedure on a jehovah’s witness and a vaccine injection is a medical procedure.

AGAIN, I agree with you that medical exceptions are given out far too often.

I don't think a rule saying all must take the vaccine would fly. No one is being forced to take it. Even I'd not agree to that.

But. What the rules so far have said is if you don't want to, then don't. But then you give up certain access to things. That's where the choice is. Jab, access. No jab, cool. Just don't come go or work here.

Freedoms do have limits. Ex, you're free to smoke. Just not in the Swiss chalet.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ While I agree with you, the freedom to follow one's religion is a pretty basic human right. You cannot force a medical procedure on a jehovah’s witness and a vaccine injection is a medical procedure.

AGAIN, I agree with you that medical exceptions are given out far too often.

I think some people have a conflict with their religion and what it is listed in the ingredients for the shot as well.

kr0zet wrote: ↑ While I agree with you, the freedom to follow one's religion is a pretty basic human right. You cannot force a medical procedure on a jehovah’s witness and a vaccine injection is a medical procedure.

AGAIN, I agree with you that medical exceptions are given out far too often.

Yes you can. This was reversed back in 1952 for Jehovah Witnesses. The ones that say it now are full of crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_and_religion

2nd paragraph is specific to Jehovah's.

None, and I mean ZERO religions ban vaccines...ZERO. Vaccines help society and everyone in it stay safe...if you believe some imaginary person in the sky is telling you not to get vaccinated, you should either be forced to get it, or asked to leave the country.

Ridiculous that this is still happening in 2021.

teedomo88 wrote: ↑ Yes you can. This was reversed back in 1952 for Jehovah Witnesses. The ones that say it now are full of crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_and_religion

2nd paragraph is specific to Jehovah's.

None, and I mean ZERO religions ban vaccines...ZERO. Vaccines help society and everyone in it stay safe...if you believe some imaginary person in the sky is telling you not to get vaccinated, you should either be forced to get it, or asked to leave the country.

Ridiculous that this is still happening in 2021.

Did you bother to read the link you cited?

Christian Science selectively rejected various forms of medical care including vaccination.[14][15] The Congregation of Universal Wisdom, a religion based on belief in chiropractic spinal adjustments and Universal Intelligence, forbids vaccinations.[16][17] The New York Times covered the Congregation of Universal Wisdom and noted that many families have used these religious memberships to avoid vaccination requirements.[18] In a court case citing the Congregation of Universal Wisdom, Turner v. Liverpool Cent. School, the United States District Court in New York affirmed the permissibility of claiming religious exemption from vaccination on the basis of such membership.[19]

Jehovah's Witnesses were a poor example on my part but from your own link there are religions that ban vaccines and in the US all but 5 states allow exemptions from vaccines for religions reasons...

Ontario Schools Vaccines

Under the Immunization of School Pupils Act, your child can be exempted from immunization for medical reasons or due to conscience or religious belief.

AGAIN, I am NOT advocating for religions exemptions to vaccines. I am pointing out that hey DO exist.