November 22, 2025, marks the 25th anniversary of National Housing Day. Just as Labour Day is an opportunity to reflect on the achievements of the labour movement and continue fighting for workers’ rights, National Housing Day is a day to recognize housing as a fundamental human right and take action to ensure everyone has a safe, secure, and affordable place to call home.
Over the past year, we have seen some important progress on the right to housing across the country, alongside some deeply concerning backsliding. Below, we highlight key right to housing wins, misses, and opportunities ahead. You can also find information about National Housing Day events in your region to join the movement to continue pushing for concrete action to end housing need and homelessness.
Across the country, a few provincial and territorial governments took some promising steps to expand rent regulation, while ongoing opportunities remain to close loopholes and ensure renters have secure, affordable homes for the long term:
In other jurisdictions, opposition parties are planning or introduced private members’ bills calling for stronger rent regulation, where rent regulation is weak and/or contains loopholes – for example, in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec – or where rent regulation does not exist at all – for example, in Saskatchewan. See CCHR’s commentary on the importance of strong rent regulation to protect renters in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and across the country.
In addition to launching its new homelessness strategy, Manitoba also took important steps to protect some of its community housing stock and require landlords to cover costs for renters forced to leave their homes due to health or safety issues. See CCHR’s deputation to the Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs on the importance of ensuring landlords fulfill their obligations to provide safe and habitable homes for renters.
Across the country, some jurisdictions either reduced or failed to ensure equitable access to community housing for those in greatest need:
Following a year of both progress and backsliding on the right to housing across the country, we look forward to upcoming opportunities to centre housing as a human right in the national discourse and in law and policy at all levels of government, through ongoing research, policy advocacy, law reform, and community engagement and mobilization.
Later this year, Neha, the National Housing Council review panel on the right to housing for women, Two Spirit, Trans, and gender-diverse people, will release recommendations for the federal government to uphold this right, following engagement with people with lived experience, housing rights organizations, and experts on human rights, housing, and social inequality. See CCHR’s recommendations, where we outline the impact of intersectional factors on housing security, gendered experiences of homelessness, Canada’s duty and failure to uphold the right to housing for women and gender-diverse people, and key principles and actions to realize this right.
On June 12, 2025, the Federal Housing Advocate called for the National Housing Council to launch its next review panel to examine the lack of accessible housing across Canada, in light of the disproportionate rates of housing need and homelessness among people with disabilities. CCHR looks forward to engaging in this review panel and helping advance the right to housing for people with disabilities, drawing on our ongoing policy and research work in this area.
As we highlight in our analysis of the 2025 federal budget, attaching conditions for provinces and territories to access federal funding is critical to ensure an effective, coordinated approach to ending homelessness and housing need. The federal government exercised this power by using the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund as an incentive for provinces and territories to adopt elements of the Renters’ Bill of Rights. It also introduced a new Build Communities Strong Fund that has the potential to take a similar approach.
Building on our advocacy to date, we continue to call for the federal government to strengthen the Renters’ Bill of Rights and ensure that provinces and territories commit to implementing strong renter protections in order to access federal funding, including long-term affordability, security, and other critical protections for renters. At the same time, we look forward to ongoing work with provinces and territories to strengthen renter protections across the country – both in policy and in practice.
As noted above, CCHR was proud to join coalitions of advocates, researchers, and lived experts across various sectors – including housing, homelessness, health care, drug policy, disability justice, human rights, settlement, migrant justice, public transit, and more – to push back against harmful laws in Ontario. We are also active members of Right to Housing Toronto, Right to Housing Manitoba, National Right to Housing Network, and other community, legal, and research networks, where we work with partners across the country to advance the right to housing.
Looking ahead to 2026, we will continue building and engaging with coalitions to drive collective advocacy and action to end homelessness and housing need.
To address the growing housing and homelessness crisis across Canada, the federal government is creating Build Canada Homes, a new housing agency responsible for building affordable housing and modernizing the construction industry. In August 2025, the government released a Market Sounding Guide to gather feedback from housing sector stakeholders on how Build Canada Homes should operate and support the development of affordable housing. Below, we outline our key recommendations to ensure that Build Canada Homes can effectively tackle the housing and homelessness crisis by taking an evidence- and human rights-based approach.
We welcome Build Canada Homes’ focus on affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families, including partnerships with non-market community housing developers and providers such as Indigenous, non-profit, co-operative, and public housing. This is critical to ensure those most impacted by the housing and homelessness crisis have access to housing that meets their needs and that public funding is directed toward the public good.
We strongly support the Market Sounding Guide’s principle that private investors do not disproportionately benefit from public investments. Over-reliance on the private sector has failed to produce housing that is affordable and accessible to those in greatest need. At the same time, fiscal and regulatory incentives have fueled the financialization of housing. Financialization refers to the treatment of housing as a commodity and investment vehicle to maximize profits rather than as a fundamental human right. Financialization has led to rising rents, poor maintenance and more evictions, disproportionately impacting low-income, racialized and other marginalized communities.
In line with a human rights-based approach, it is also encouraging to see that Build Canada Homes aims to align funding with housing outcomes, including affordability. The National Housing Strategy Act formally established Canada’s commitment to progressively realize the right to housing. This includes setting clear targets, timelines, monitoring and reporting mechanisms to end homelessness and core housing need in the shortest time possible by committing the maximum of available resources and utilizing all appropriate means.
In our recent submission to the Build Canada Homes consultation, we highlight three key areas that the federal government should prioritize to ensure Build Canada Homes meets the needs of those most impacted by the housing and homelessness crisis.
1. Prioritize and maximize investments in the community housing sector by:
2. Uphold all elements of the right to adequate housing by:
3. Commit to robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms by:
We continue to engage closely with federal contacts on our recommendations. Together with sector partners, we are urging the government to adopt evidence- and rights-based solutions to the housing and homelessness crisis through Build Canada Homes. The government has also committed to providing ongoing engagement opportunities, with a focus on Indigenous partners.
We will monitor updates on the launch of Build Canada Homes over the coming weeks and months. We welcome individuals and organizations to reiterate and amplify our recommendations to ensure Build Canada Homes prioritizes the development and preservation of truly affordable housing through a human rights-based approach.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Toronto, ON – March 5, 2025 – A new report released today by the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights (CCHR) finds that racialized individuals, newcomers and people with children across Canada face heightened discrimination when searching to secure a rental home. It also finds that people with disabilities face high levels of discrimination while living in a rental home.
The research study, conducted in partnership with Dr. Gordon Hodson at Brock University, is the first national study discrimination in rental housing ever published in Canada. It used an experimental design method to analyze the responses from landlords and property managers to individuals who had inquired about a vacant rental home. It also analyzed survey responses from renters about their experiences during their search for a rental home, and while living in one.
The research team studied 57 communities across Canada. By analyzing 1,178 messages sent to landlords and property managers, and 586 survey responses from renters, the study found that, in comparison to white individuals, landlords responded less often to racialized individuals, and even less when racialized individuals had a child. Landlords asked these individuals more questions about their personal life – for example about their marital, family and citizenship status – and even more of these questions to newcomers. They also requested more proof of income and employment from racialized individuals and women as compared to white men. Landlords ultimately rejected more rental applications from racialized individuals, and the most from newcomers.
“Marginalized groups continue to face concerning levels of discrimination in rental housing across Canada, and these problems may only be worsened by low vacancy rates and high income inequality,” says Megan Earle, Independent Researcher.
“With these conditions, landlords are able to be very selective in who they’re renting to.” says Sophie O’Manique, Senior Researcher at the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights. “This research confirms widespread discrimination against some groups of would-be renters, which creates even steeper barriers for them to find a reasonable place to live.”
The study also found that landlords very often required people with disabilities to follow different rules than other renters who did not have a disability. People with disabilities also reported experiencing very high rates of aggression and violations of their boundaries from landlords.
“Even after finding a rental home, marginalized groups often face additional discrimination at the hands of their landlords during their tenancy,” says Earle. “Policy and advocacy efforts are needed to confront landlord discrimination on both fronts – during renters’ search for housing, and while they’re living in their home.”
“For many, this is an impossible situation,” says O’Manique. “Governments need to act with urgency to ensure an adequate supply of affordable rental housing, and work to enforce existing human rights protections.”
Media contact:
Shelley Buckingham
Director of Communications, Canadian Centre for Housing Rights
Email: media [at] housingrightscanada.com
Across Canada, renters are increasingly struggling to find affordable housing and to remain in their homes. Eviction rates in Canada are shockingly high, with 7% of Canadian households reporting that they have been evicted at some point in their lives. Many people who are evicted from their homes may not find another place to live, and every year more than 235,000 people in Canada experience homelessness. This does not capture the experiences of hidden homelessness like individuals couch surfing or living in overcrowded conditions with their family and friends.
The human right to housing is an important framework for opposing unnecessary evictions and preventing the growing experiences of homelessness. Under Canada’s National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Canada is obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to housing. The obligation to respect the right to housing prohibits Canadian government bodies, such as residential tenancies tribunals in different provinces, from evicting households from their homes, except when an eviction is necessary as a last resort.
Specifically, eviction is only permitted under international human rights law if all the following are true:
This is because international law recognizes that, like other human rights, adequate housing is fundamental to human dignity. It can only be restricted in circumstances where the restriction is justified in a free and democratic society.
Unfortunately, all too often Canadian tribunals order evictions in violation of these basic principles. For example:
To further complicate the matter, Canada’s eviction laws vary wildly between provinces. Some provincial laws allow tribunal adjudicators to consider the circumstances and decide whether eviction would be fair, so that it would at least be possible for the tribunal to respect the right to housing. Other provincial laws give adjudicators no choice but to order evictions, making it impossible for them to respect the right to housing. These varying laws have created uneven protections for renters across the country, leaving many vulnerable to losing their homes without the chance to present their circumstances and the devastating impact that an eviction may have on their lives.
To ensure that renters in Canada have a fair chance to live in their homes and contribute meaningfully to their communities and the economy, we need a shift in our approach to eviction. To meet Canada’s obligation to respect the right to housing, we recommend that each province and territory must:
Evictions can be devastating for those who experience them. In too many instances, evictions can lead to experiences of homelessness. It is our duty as a democratic society to protect everyone, irrespective of their income or circumstances, to live with dignity and in secure homes.
This informational pamphlet details the responsibilities of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments in Canada to work toward the progressive realization of the right to housing.
This pamphlet was produced by the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights (CCHR) and the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN).
This informational pamphlet outlines how governments can use the planning and development tools at their disposal to ensure that the right to adequate housing is realized. It also outlines key actions that governments should take to develop new approaches to planning and zoning to promote inclusive, vibrant communities that ensure adequate housing for all, and how individuals can engage in this process as well.
This pamphlet was produced by the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights (CCHR) and the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN).
This informational pamphlet examines the issue of renovations and upgrading that lead to evictions from rental housing, which denies people their right to security of tenure – a key component of the right to housing. We outline how “renovictions” are playing out across Canada, and how advancing the right to housing can help to address these issues.
This pamphlet was produced by the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights (CCHR) and the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN).
The Government of Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) commits to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable, promote community building and encourage partnerships to advance the right to housing. How will this be done?
This pamphlet examines the extent to which governmental budgeting and resource allocation is contributing to meeting the goals the federal government has set out in the NHS, as well as its commitments to implement the right to housing as outlined in the National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA).
This pamphlet was produced by the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights (CCHR) and the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN).
Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is a planning tool used by municipal governments to encourage or mandate developers who intend to build new dwellings, to “set aside” a portion of these units for affordable use. Such units may be allocated for sale or lease at affordable rates. Developers may also have the option of building the affordable units in other locations within a city, or they may be able to pay cash in lieu of actually developing the units. Municipal governments may offer incentives such as further relaxations on building height or “density bonusing” to generate more investments from developers in affordable housing.
The rationale for adopting the policy partly stems from a general failure among many local governments to effectively leverage the dynamics of the market to create affordable housing options for low - and moderate-income people. For instance, in Toronto out of the 230,000 new housing units that were constructed or slated for development over the last five years, only 2% offered rents at or below market rates. Most of the new buildings are condominiums or detached homes. Housing options available for those living on fixed incomes like seniors or for people making a living off precarious employment like many young adults, are negligible.
Local planning and infrastructure investment decisions have created conditions to promote private development activity in major cities across Canada, but not enough affordable housing has emerged out of this process. Specifically, zoning amendments such as density relaxations and encouragement of mixed -use development signal greater economic activity, in turn promoting speculative behaviour in land markets. Prospective investors and developers make projections about potential development revenues generated based on the policy changes and related market and operational variables, in practice materializing into inflated investments in land. To maximize profit margins, new housing built on these lands are priced at rates that are targeted towards higher income earners.
The strategy is thus investor driven - one that endeavours to increase returns at exponential rates. The housing needs of households in the low- and moderate-income range are effectively overlooked, leading to a form of market failure that warrants some form of government intervention. Indeed, public policy appears to have created conditions for the development industry to reap windfall profits without many conditions in place to capture a meaningful portion of the proceeds for the greater needs of the public.
IZ closes part of this gap. By requiring or negotiating with developers to provide affordable housing options either directly or through cash in lieu, evidence from most jurisdictions that have experimented with the policy shows that affordable options can be created over time with varying levels of success. Plus, it is likely that the restrictive orientation of the IZ policy tool has a dampening effect on the skyrocketing prices of land in many cities.
Opponents of the policy tend to point to the policy’s cost prohibitive design. This, they suggest, leads to rising house prices, the burdens of which are carried by prospective homeowners, or supply could be constricted at a city-wide level. However, the theoretical basis and evidence to support such claims are fragile.
Firstly, property buyers tend to be sensitive to dramatic price shifts, so developers are left with little room to pass on high costs to these groups without risking losing market share. To the extent that there may be some increase in house prices in select cases, the role of IZ in this increase is minimal. In areas such as the Washington-Baltimore region, where the effects of the policy on supply have been studied, there appears to be no evidence of any negative effects after the introduction of the IZ policy.
While IZ clearly demonstrates potential, it can only work in cities with hot property markets, ones which are experiencing population and economic growth. If house prices are not escalating rapidly enough, then developers do not have the room to internalize the costs of the policy and generate sufficient returns. In fact, within cities, some neighbourhoods might be experiencing faster growth than others, implying the need for a differentiated approach to applying the policy.
Further, IZ primarily benefits moderate-income earners. A private developer can only do so much in creating affordable housing options. To sustain the arrangement, the prospective homeowner or renter must be earning a reasonable income generated from employment. This helps cover costs of rent or mortgage as well as maintenance and repairs over time. Its potential of helping meet the needs of this group is significant. Persistent shortfalls in affordable housing options can increase the risk of labour shortages on account of pricing out such households who then seek out cheaper options in other jurisdictions.
However, households in lower income categories such as newcomers and single-parent families have limited mobility options given that economic opportunities and social and physical infrastructure tend to be concentrated in larger cities. Neglecting such groups threatens the very economic dynamism and social fabric of large metropolises. A creative IZ policy that includes provisions for more stringent affordability requirements in some areas along with additional supports may hold some potential in covering a wider spectrum of income groups including households living in more precarious economic conditions.
Several European countries have experimented with various forms of IZ over the years. The United States, given its long history with implementing the policy, and comparable federal structure to Canada is noteworthy. IZ started emerging in the 1970s in American urban policy as federal housing programs started to wind down.
Today, there are over 500 IZ programs in about half of the country’s states, with jurisdictions ranging from large cities such as Chicago to smaller communities like Telluride, Colorado. The majority of initiatives is concentrated in California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Key facts include:
The extent to which IZ can generate a significant number of affordable housing stock is contingent on the calibration of the policy, the permutations and combinations of which are determined by local context.
Montreal and Vancouver were the first Canadian cities to start experimenting with voluntary forms of inclusionary zoning. As provinces empower municipalities to adopt the policies, more are considering following suit. Notably, Toronto has proposed a mandatory program that will last for 99 years. Such actions point to an increasing recognition amongst municipal governments across Canada that value capture tools are a critical way to address the growing housing crisis in the country.
Submission to:
In our submission, we are writing to urge the federal government to allocate funding for rental households who face the loss of their housing through eviction due to income loss and the accumulation of rental arrears. We are also urging the government to enact a program designed to acquire and preserve existing affordable rental housing.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
