BC's Residential Tenancy System

BC’s Residential Tenancy System13 ReCommendaTionS foR poSiTive Change

A JOINT REPORT BYActive Manufactured Homeowners AssociationBC Public Interest Advocacy CentreCommunity Legal Assistance SocietyPivot Legal SocietyTRAC Tenant Resource & Advisory CentreWest Coast LEAF

Phot

o cre

dit: J

ames

Whi

twick

i

We are a coalition of legal organizations working withpeople affected by residential tenancy issues. Together wehave a wide breadth of knowledge of, and experience withBC’s Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) and Residential Ten-ancy Branch (RTB), and how they are working for peopleacross BC. We have come together in the lead-up to the2013 election to develop recommendations to ensure theResidential Tenancy Act achieves its purpose of balancingthe rights of tenants and landlords.

The current shortage of affordable housing in BC meansthat housing is costlier and less readily available. Thismakes tenants more vulnerable, and also increases thelikelihood that tenants and landlords will find themselvesin conflict. In this context, our landlord/tenant legislationneeds to contain reasonable protections for tenants. Justas important, the RTB needs to be empowered to effec-tively administer the legislation. In our province, the RTBis the only forum that landlords and tenants can use to re-solve their disputes. It is critical that this forum functionas fairly and effectively as possible.

This paper presents a series of legislative and operationalproposals to move BC in line with the rest of Canada. Theproposals are modest, and many have been implementedin other jurisdictions. We believe these proposals are nec-essary, based on our extensive work and consultation withtenants across the province.

Our hope is that these recommendations will be a usefultool for considering ways to enhance the effectiveness,fairness and responsiveness of the province’s residentialtenancy framework.

If you have any questions please contact one of our pointpeople:

Joyce Klein, Secretary TreasurerActive Manufactured Homeowners Association [email protected] / 250 544-1456

Eugene Kung, Staff LawyerBC Public Interest Advocacy [email protected] / 604 687-3006

Jess Hadley, Staff LawyerCommunity Legal Assistance [email protected] / 604 673-3136

Darcie Bennett, Campaigns DirectorPivot Legal [email protected] / 604 255-9700 ext. 102

Andrew Sakamoto, Executive DirectorTRAC Tenant Resource & Advisory [email protected] / 604 255-3099 ext. 222

Laura Track, Legal DirectorWest Coast [email protected] / 604 684-8772 ext. 112

introduction

Summary of recommendations

The coalition’s suggestions focus on 13 simple changes which would immediately and demonstrably im-prove the lives of BC’s citizens.

Toughen rent controls. 1Minimize harsh and unnecessary evictions. 2Empower the RTB for prevention and enforcement. 3Prioritize administrative fairness under the RTA. 4Protect subsidized tenants. 5Prohibit application deposits. 6Deter fraudulent evictions, illegal lockouts, and landlord retaliation. 7Fairly compensate legitimate evictions. 8Enforce landlords’ duty to provide copy of tenancy agreement. 9Require landlords to give written warning, and particulars, before issuing a notice to end tenancy.10Protect tenant safety.11Clarify the RTA’s coverage. 12Provide housing security for Mobile Home Park tenants.13

3

1. Toughen rent controls

Limit the annual rent increase. The permitted an-nual rent increase is set at the rate of inflation (12 monthaverage percent change in the all-items Consumer PriceIndex for BC) plus 2%. Under this formula a $1,000 rent in2003 has been allowed to increase to $1,443.41 in 2013 (a44% increase). Such an increase relentlessly erodes ten-ants’ standard of living, especially for those on fixed in-comes and those earning minimum wage.

Legislative recommendation: Amend thelegislation to reduce the allowable annual rentincrease in one or both of the following ways:

Eliminate or lower the 2% base set out insection 22 (2) of the Regulation1, so that theallowable rent increase equals inflation, ratherthan exceeding it,

OR

Keep a minimum base percentage (e.g. 1%), butcap the maximum allowable increase at 2.5%.(In Ontario, the allowable rent increasepercentage is capped at 2.5%.)

While we recognize that landlords may face increasingcosts such as higher insurance rates and need to coverthese in order to remain financially viable, our proposalwould not involve changing the existing regulation per-mitting landlords to apply for a rent increase where theycan show an “extraordinary increase in operating costs”,which is already available to take pressure off landlordsin such situations (Residential Tenancy Regulation, s.22(1)(c)).

Manage rent increases between tenancies.When a tenant moves out, a landlord has the right tocharge the new tenant whatever rent the market will bear.Currently, new tenants have no transparency about howtheir rent compares with that charged to the previous ten-ant.

Legislative recommendation: Landlordsshould be required to inform incomingtenants what rent was charged to theprevious tenant. Formally requiring suchinformation would serve to deterunwarranted, exponential increases in rentbetween tenancies.2

Limit rent increases between fixed-term ten-ancies. The RTA currently allows landlords and tenantsto sign fixed-term tenancies that expressly require tenantsto move out at the end, unless both parties agree to an en-tirely new tenancy agreement (in which the landlord hascomplete freedom to charge a much higher rent). This isfrequently used as a means of circumventing the RTA’srent controls.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAshould be amended to provide that wherethe same parties renew a tenancyagreement for the same property, rentincreases should be limited in the samemanner as if the tenancy had continueduninterrupted.

Highlight tenants’ right to seek rent abate-ment in appropriate cases, to offset annualrent increases. Annual rent increases are justified toallow landlords to offset inflationary pressures on theirproperties’ regular maintenance and upkeep. However, ifa landlord is refusing to make repairs or otherwise ne-glecting their responsibilities under the RTA or MHPTA,the tenant has the right to seek rent abatement, which mayoffset or even exceed the amount of the annual increase.To flag this for tenants, and discourage landlords from ne-glecting their obligations under the legislation and ten-ancy agreement, the notice of annual rent increase formshould note that the tenant can seek rent abatement if fa-cilities and services are not being provided as requiredunder the legislation and tenancy agreement.

Operational recommendation: Include astatement on the notice of annual rentincrease form informing tenants that iftheir landlord is failing to meet itsobligations under the RTA and tenancyagreement the tenant may apply for rentabatement.

2. minimize harsh andunnecessary evictions

Factor in fairness and hardship when issuingorders of possession. Arbitrators currently have noobligation to consider the potentially harsh consequencesof a short-fuse eviction order. In practice, the RTB com-monly issues orders of possession effective in 48 hours,with no analysis of whether such a short timeline is nec-essary or appropriate. Arbitrators should be required tobalance the factors affecting both tenant and landlord(length of tenancy; tenant’s risk of homelessness; whetherthere are children who will be affected by the eviction; anyrisk to the property; whether the tenant can continue topay rent, etc.), before determining the timeline on an orderof possession.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAand MHPTA should mandate thatarbitrators must set appropriate timelinesthat are fair and just in all thecircumstances, when issuing orders ofpossession.

Clarify when an order of possession isstayed. Currently, the RTA and MHPTA are ambiguousabout whether or not an application to review an arbitra-tor ’s order (including an order of possession requiring atenant to vacate their rental unit) puts that order on hold.This creates uncertainty between landlords and tenants,and a greater risk of sudden eviction and homelessness.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAand MHPTA should clearly state that anarbitrator’s order (including an order ofpossession) is automatically stayed when aparty seeks a review under the RTA).When an order of possession is upheld onreview, the reviewing arbitrator should beable to set a new timeline appropriate tothe circumstances, on the order ofpossession.

Give arbitrators the power to consider equi-table relief. Currently, if a tenant receives a notice toend tenancy for non-payment of rent or utilities, and thenfails to (1) pay or (2) dispute the notice within a 5-day pe-riod, he or she is conclusively presumed to have acceptedthat the tenancy is at an end. This is true even if he or shecan pay the full amount owed within a reasonable timewithout creating significant hardship for the landlord.Arbitrators are therefore precluded from consideringmany legitimate reasons tenants have for being late withrent or utilities. Barring arbitrators from relieving tenantsfrom eviction in such situations inflicts needless distresson many tenants.

Legislative recommendation: the RTA andMHPTA should be amended to restorearbitrators’ power to reinstate a tenancy,in appropriate cases, when a tenant haspaid rent late (more than 5 days afterreceiving a notice to end tenancy forunpaid rent or utilities). This powerexisted in the 1998 version of the RTA, butwas removed when the current RTA wasenacted.

Increase the grace period for late rent pay-ment. Tenants can currently cancel a notice to end ten-ancy if they pay their rent within 5 days after receiving anotice to end tenancy for unpaid rent or utilities. Thistimeline is significantly shorter than in other provinces.For example, Ontario gives tenants a 14-day grace period.

Legislative recommendation: Increase thegrace period in s. 46(4) of the RTA (and s.39(4) of MHPTA) so that tenants maycancel an eviction notice if they pay alloutstanding rent and utilities within 10days after they receive a notice to endtenancy for unpaid rent or utilities. Thisrecommendation would not interfere withlandlords’ right to seek eviction forrepeated late payment of rent.

BC’s Residential Tenancy System: Recommendations for Change

5

3.empower the RTB forprevention and enforcement

Administrative penalties. The RTA and MHPTAcontain strong provisions allowing the RTB to investigatebreaches of the RTA and impose administrative penaltieson landlords. But to date, the RTB has scarcely exercisedits investigation powers. Meanwhile, it has only ever is-sued one administrative penalty, which it has sincewaived. The RTB should be mandated to make more ex-tensive use of financial penalties as a deterrent, especiallyagainst landlords who consistently defy the law.

Operational recommendation: Fund andmandate the RTB to fully exercise itsinvestigation and administrative powers.

Legislative recommendation: Remove theprovisions in s. 94.1(4), (5), (6) of the RTAthat allow agreements in lieu ofenforcement of administrative penalties.

Mandate RTB staff to intervene informally indisputes. Our clients and other stakeholders reportthat RTB information officers are generally unwilling tocall landlords on behalf of tenants. Having an RTB staffperson explain the law – for instance, the administrativepenalties process – to a landlord would go a long way indeterring non-compliance and preventing problems beforethey escalate. This would be a relatively small operationalchange that would reduce the number of hearings needed,saving resources for parties and for the RTB. This changeto the RTB’s mandate could also be of value to landlordsseeking to resolve small concerns with tenants informally.

Operational recommendation: Increaseearly intervention efforts at the RTB.

4.prioritize administrativefairness under the RTa

Improve standards of decision-making. Sincethe Residential Tenancy Branch decides serious issues be-tween landlords and tenants (such as evictions, monetaryorders worth up to $25,000, and tenants’ health andsafety) it is imperative that its processes be held to a highstandard in terms of independence, accessibility and ad-ministrative fairness

Operational recommendation: Demandhigher levels of qualification forarbitrators; provide better training forarbitrators; provide arbitrators withsufficient time to conduct hearingseffectively and to produce adequate writtendecisions; and develop better systems toassist arbitrators with proper decision-writing.

CASE STUDY In 2007, the roof of a rental housingbuilding collapsed, damaging or destroying several of thebuilding’s units. The RTB found that the owners had knownfor years of water ingress into the roof structure, yetundertook no serious attempt to fix the problem. In 2010,one of the impacted tenants issued a complaint with theRTB. An arbitrator issued an order for an engineeringreport on the status of the building’s envelope. Laterinvestigation revealed extreme problems with virtuallyevery aspect of the building, including rot damage to thestructure itself.

In 2012, after a two-year fight by the tenant, a low-incomewoman, the RTB imposed its first ever administrativepenalty—a $115,000 fine against the owners for failing tomaintain the property and breaching previous RTB orders.

The RTB has since agreed to waive the fine provided the land-lord does the repairs within a fixed timeline. Assuming thelandlord does indeed complete the repairs, it will have escapedwithout any penalty after delaying for over 5 years on essen-tial structural repairs required by law.

Create a meaningful review process. Cur-rently the RTA and MHPTA contain very narrow reviewprovisions and a limited power to correct or clarify arbi-trators’ decisions. As a result, a tenant faced with abreach of procedural fairness, or a decision that is unsup-portable given the law and the evidence, has no recourseother than an unaffordable, inaccessible judicial review inBC Supreme Court.

Legislative recommendation: Amend theRTA to create a system where parties canapply to a well-qualified, independentreview panel to challenge a decision that isunfair or exceeds the arbitrator’sjurisdiction in any way.

Increase RTB independence. Currently, arbitra-tors under the RTA and MHPTA are employees and con-tractors hired by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Toour knowledge, the RTB is the only administrative deci-sion-maker in BC where important quasi-judicial decision-making is done by direct government employees asopposed to institutionally independent decision-makers.This compromises the independence (and public percep-tion of independence) of the RTB’s decision-making.

Legislative recommendation: Amend thelegislation to make the Director anappointee of Cabinet (not an employee ofgovernment under the Public Service Act),and to require that arbitrators be appointedby the Minister after consultation with theDirector.

Improve service for rural communities. Serv-ice BC centers function as an extension of the RTB in ruralareas, but their staff have limited training in RTB issues.Meanwhile the public reports that wait times are oftenvery lengthy for the RTB’s telephone information system.Improving training for Service BC staff on how to assistclients to find information, reopening more regional of-fices for the RTB, and reducing phone wait times, are allessential to improve the accessibility of the RTB for ruralcommunities.

Operational recommendation: Openoffices in more communities (more regionaloffices like in downtown Vancouver),improve training for Service BC staff, andreduce telephone wait times.

In-person hearings. Since 2007 the RTB has imple-mented a teleconference system for its hearings. Today,nearly all RTB hearings are held via teleconference call.This approach to decision-making is inaccessible for ten-ants with disabilities and mental health problems, andoften compromises litigants’ perception that they havehad a fair hearing. Indeed, the BC Supreme Court hascommented on the problems with the teleconference sys-tem in a number of judicial reviews of RTB decisions.

Operational recommendation: Givelitigants the option of an in-personhearing. At the very least, provide an in-person hearing when necessary to ensure afair and accessible hearing (e.g. languagebarrier, communication problems, mentalhealth issues, high conflict cases).

Operational recommendation: Ensurelitigants are aware of the option ofrequesting an in-person hearing, byincluding a statement to that effect on theApplication for Dispute Resolution form.


“the BC Supreme Courthas commented on theproblems with the tele-conference system in anumber of judicial re-

views of RTB decisions”

7

5. protect subsidized tenants

Enable the RTB to monitor some aspects ofsubsidy withdrawal cases. The RTA does not cur-rently give the Director clear jurisdiction to ensure thatlandlords are acting fairly when determining whether atenant is eligible for a subsidy. We accept that landlordsneed leeway to set eligibility criteria for subsidies, and donot suggest that the Director should have jurisdiction toexamine these criteria. However, tenants do need to havean independent avenue of appeal when their subsidy iswithdrawn for reasons they believe are out of step withthe policy that their housing provider has set.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAshould protect subsidized tenants fromunfair withdrawal of their subsidy byclearly granting the RTB jurisdiction todetermine whether the withdrawal wasprocedurally fair and factually supported.

Close the s. 49.1 loophole. Section 49.1 of the RTAprovides that tenants are entitled to two months’ noticewhen evicted for ceasing to qualify for their rental unit.Instead of issuing this type of two month notice, however,some landlords pull tenants’ subsidies and then issue aten day notice for non-payment of rent when the tenantsare subsequently unable to pay the new market rent.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAshould clearly state that it is a landlord’sresponsibility to issue a two-month notice,as opposed to a ten-day notice for non-payment of the higher rent, when evictinga tenant who no longer qualifies for asubsidized rental unit.

6. prohibit applicationdeposits

Landlords sometimes ask for “application deposits” as away of circumventing the provision prohibiting “applica-tion and processing fees”. For tenants whose applicationsare approved, this “deposit” is returned or applied to theirtenancy. For tenants whose applications are unsuccessful,the “deposit” is supposed to be returned. Making tenantspay this sort of fee – which can be upwards of one month’srent – for every potential rental unit they are applying foris unfair, especially for low-income tenants. There is alsoa danger that the landlord will refuse to return the moneyto unsuccessful applicants.

Legislative recommendation: Changesection 15 of the RTA to read as follows:

Application and processing fees anddeposits prohibited15 (1) A landlord must not charge a personanything for(a) accepting an application for a tenancy,(b) processing the application,(c) investigating the applicant’s suitabilityas a tenant, or(d) accepting the person as a tenant.(2) A landlord must not charge a personanything listed in subsection (1), even if thetenant is entitled to have the application orprocessing fee or deposit later returned orapplied towards the tenancy.

“landlords sometimes ask for‘application deposits’ as a wayof circumventing the provision

prohibiting ‘application andprocessing fees’”

7. deter fraudulent evictions,illegal lockouts, and landlordretaliation

Deter fraudulent evictions. A tenant can legiti-mately be evicted where a landlord intends to signifi-cantly renovate the rental unit or where the unit is to beused by the landlord or her family. Some landlords usethese provisions in bad faith when they wish to evict ten-ants who would otherwise be entitled to stay. As the lawcurrently stands, the tenant bears the onus of raising theissue of bad faith. This should be reversed to requirelandlords to prove in all cases they are acting in good faithbefore issuing notices to end tenancy for landlord’s ownuse. As well, the penalty for landlords who issue bad faitheviction notices should be increased.

Legislative recommendation: Increase themonetary penalty for landlords who act inbad faith when purporting to evict forlandlord’s own use (s. 51(2) of the RTA).The penalty is currently 2 months’ rentand needs to be increased to create ameaningful deterrent.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAand MHPTA should require landlords toapply to the RTB for leave to issue a noticeto end tenancy for renovations or forlandlord’s own use, and to prove that theyare acting in good faith. The burdenshould not be on the tenant to dispute thelandlord’s notice to end tenancy. Forexample, the section could read:

Circumstances where refusal required(1) The Residential Tenancy Branchshall refuse to grant the applicationwhere satisfied that,(a) the landlord is in serious breach ofthe landlord’s responsibilities underthis Act or of any material covenant inthe tenancy agreement;(b) the reason for the application beingbrought is that the tenant hascomplained to a governmentalauthority of the landlord’s violation ofa law dealing with health, safety,housing or maintenance standards;(c) the reason for the application beingbrought is that the tenant hasattempted to secure or enforce his orher legal rights;(d) the reason for the application beingbrought is that the tenant is a memberof a tenants’ association or isattempting to organize such anassociation; or(e) the reason for the application beingbrought is that the rental unit isoccupied by children and theoccupation by the children does notconstitute overcrowding.

Deter landlord retaliation. Tenants are currentlyprovided no protection against landlord retaliation for ex-ercising their rights, such as organizing tenant unions ordemanding that repairs be completed.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAand MHPTA should expressly permittenants who believe they are subject toretaliation from a landlord to apply forcompensation at the RTB.


CASE STUDY In late 2010 the residents of an apartmentcomplex in Vancouver’s West End were issued eviction noticesby their property management company, which argued that thebuilding was unsafe and required substantial renovations, ne-cessitating that the building be vacant. This notice was issuedless than two weeks after the RTB rejected the company’s ap-plication to increase rents in the building by 73%. The tenantshad justifiable doubts as to the required ‘good faith’ of theeviction notice.

Under the RTA, the onus was on the tenants to rebut the land-lord’s eviction notice. After two months of round-the-clock ef-fort by the residents to compile an exhaustive body of evidencerefuting the need for vacant possesion—including letters fromthe former owner, contractors and tradespeople, and corre-spondence with the company—an arbitrator concurred withthe tenants and quashed the eviction notice. The company soldthe building shortly thereafter.

While a success for the residents, the effort required to savetheir homes raises serious questions about the RTA’s currentability to protect tenants against deceitful eviction.

9

Operational recommendation: The RTBshould levy administrative penaltiesagainst landlords found to be using theRTB process to harass or intimidate atenant.

Deter illegal lockout of tenants. Where landlordsbar tenants entry to their units without due process, ten-ants can be left homeless, often with tenants’ possessionslocked in the rental unit or having been disposed of by thelandlord so that the tenant is unable to access money,medication, work materials, and other essentials. Thesesorts of lockouts can ruin tenants financially and emotion-ally, and they occur far too often.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAshould expressly provide that tenants canbe compensated for monetary and non-pecuniary losses resulting from illegallockouts.

Operational recommendation: The RTBshould issue administrative penaltiesagainst landlords who engage in illegallockouts. The RTB should issuecompensation for illegal lockouts.

8. fairly compensatelegitimate evictions

Implement a right of first refusal. Where ten-ants are evicted due to renovations (so-called “renovic-tions”), they should be afforded the first opportunity toreturn to their home, at the rent previously charged. Thisright of first refusal is currently enshrined in tenancy leg-islation in other Canadian jurisdictions, including On-tario.

Legislative recommendation: Implement aright of first refusal for tenants in cases ofrenovictions.

Increase the legislated amount of compensa-tion. Currently, tenants impacted by evictions for land-lord’s own use are entitled to compensation in the amountof one month’s rent. In other jurisdictions, such as On-tario, tenants are entitled to three months’ rent as compen-sation in cases of repair, renovation, conversion ordemolition. Increasing tenants’ rights to compensationwould serve as a deterrent to dishonest evictions andwould more equitably compensate the harm that evictioncauses for tenants.

Legislative recommendation: In cases ofeviction for repair, renovation, conversionor demolition, increase compensation to atleast three months’ rent.

Legislative recommendation: In cases ofeviction for other forms of landlord’s use,increase the compensation to two months’rent.

Provide fair notice and compensation foreviction from an illegal or unsafe unit. Whenan illegal or unsafe suite gets shut down by order of a mu-nicipal, regional, provincial or federal authority, tenantsare vulnerable to homelessness. Tenants should be enti-tled to reasonable notice (safety permitting), and compen-sation from the landlord to enable them to cover the costsof an unexpected move.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAshould provide that, barring serious anddocumented health and safety concerns,tenants should be entitled to two months’notice when their unit is shut down byorder of a municipal, regional, provincialor federal authority. Tenants should alsobe entitled to a minimum of one month’srent as compensation.

9. enforce landlords’ duty toprovide copy of tenancyagreement

Currently, the RTA and MHPTA require that “[w]ithin 21days after a landlord and tenant enter into a tenancyagreement, the landlord must give the tenant a copy of theagreement.” For tenants it is vital to have a copy of thesigned tenancy agreement, since the document lists theirlandlord’s legal name and contact information, and setsout their rights under the agreement. Tenants can cur-rently apply to the RTB for a copy of their agreement (byseeking an order that the landlord comply with the RTA)but there is no penalty for landlords who delay complyingwith this duty.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAand MHPTA should provide that when alandlord does not give his/her tenant acopy of the tenancy agreement within 21days after entering into the agreement, thetenant is entitled to a nominal amount ofmonetary compensation.

10. Require landlords to givewritten warning and particu-lars before issuing a noticeto end tenancy

Written warning. Currently, there is no requirementthat landlords give tenants a chance to rectify problemsprior to issuing a notice to end tenancy for cause. Thismeans that a notice to end tenancy is often the first thinga tenant hears about problems.

Legislative recommendation: Amend thelegislation to require landlords to issue aformal notice of problems with the tenancy,and to give tenants a reasonable chance torectify the problems, before issuing aNotice to End Tenancy for Cause. (Thelegislation should allow a landlord to applyfor an exception to this rule in situationswhere the landlord can provide evidence ofa safety issue.)

Operational recommendation: Whetheror not the legislation is amended, the RTBshould issue a form for landlords to use forgiving formal notice of problems with atenancy. The RTB should also issue aguideline encouraging landlords to use thisform.

Particulars. A related difficulty is that the current No-tice to End Tenancy Form only requires landlords to indi-cate what section of the RTA or MHPTA they are relyingon. Because some sections of the legislation are very gen-eral, the tenant is often left guessing about exactly whatthe landlord thinks she did wrong, right up to the start ofthe hearing. This increases the chance the tenant will beunable to respond fully to the landlord’s allegations, thusdiminishing procedural fairness.

Operational recommendation: Changethe Notice to End Tenancy for Cause formto require that landlords provideparticulars.


“a notice to endtenancy is oftenthe first thing a

tenant hearsabout problems”

11

11. protect tenant safety

Protect survivors of domestic violence. Cur-rently, tenants who flee domestic violence remain liablefor the balance of a fixed-term tenancy if they must leavetheir residence for safety reasons before the lease expires.Women experiencing abuse should not be trapped in afixed-term tenancy when they must leave to escape a vio-lent situation. While domestic violence affects women atevery income level, those with lower incomes are lesslikely to be able to find alternative accommodation, par-ticularly if they are fleeing with their children. Both Man-itoba and Nova Scotia have amended their residentialtenancy legislation to make it easier for victims of domes-tic violence to end their leases early; British Columbiashould follow suit.

Legislative Recommendation: Amend theRTA to allow victims of domestic violenceto end their fixed-term tenancy early,without penalty, on one month’s notice.The Province should work with women-serving organizations and theanti-violence sector to determine whatevidence of abuse will be required for thepurpose of the notice to end tenancy.

Warn tenants about criminal activity. Cur-rently, there is no onus on landlords to disclose potentialsafety risks and risks of criminal victimization to tenantsas a result of the activities of previous tenants.

Legislative Recommendation: Amend theRTA to compel landlords to disclosepotential safety and security threats,including recent criminal activityinvolving the property.

12. Clarify the RTa’s coverage

Section 4 of the RTA expressly excludes transition housesand accommodation made available in the course of pro-viding rehabilitative or therapeutic treatment or services.However, there is no clarity on what forms of accommo-dation fall under these categories.

Legislative recommendation: The RTAshould be amended to clarify the definitionof ‘transition houses’ and ‘accommodationmade available in the course of providingrehabilitative or therapeutic treatment orservices’. This should be done inconsultation with transition houses andsupportive housing providers. We alsorecommend that legislators considerwhether selected sections of the RTAshould apply for forms of accommodationwhere the application of the entire RTAwould not be appropriate.

While the RTA is clear that Single Resident Occupancies(SROs), lodging houses, hotels, and other forms of accom-modation relied upon by the most economically margin-alized members of society fall under the RTA if they areoccupied as a tenancy (a distinction clarified by RTB PolicyGuideline 27) this is not always understood by landlordsand tenants, resulting in breaches of tenants’ rights. Forexample, some landlords impose guest fees on tenants’

Case Study. The Palace and Wonder Rooms are two of theDowntown Eastside’s most notorious SROs. Owned by apharmacist who has since had his license revoked, tenantscomplained for years of harassment and exploitation, includ-ing illegal lockouts and evictions.

In an egregious example of exploitation, the owner requiredresidents, as a term of their tenancy, to have their methadoneprescriptions filled at the pharmacy he owned—allowing himto collect in excess of $6000 per tenant per year in dispensingfees. Tenants who refused to comply with his tactics wereevicted.

The tenants challenged the evictions at the RTB, but the arbi-trator found that the RTA did not apply because the owner hadbeen providing ‘therapeutic services.’ Fortunately, the arbi-trator’s decision was set aside on judicial review and eventu-ally there was a new RTB decision in favour of the tenants.However, judicial review is rarely accessible to people as mar-ginalized as the residents of these hotels, and the problemneeds to be avoided at the outset by clear legislation

“women experiencingabuse should not betrapped in a fixed-

term tenancy”

visitors, in violation of section 30(1)(b) of the Act.

Legislative recommendation: Amend theRTA to expressly state that tenancies inSingle Resident Occupancies (SROs),lodging houses and hotels fall under theAct where they meet the definition of a“tenancy” under the RTA.

Currently the RTA does not cover accommodation that isshared with the owner of the rental unit. It is importantthat the government consider a mechanism for ensuringthat these residents’ rights are clearly articulated andthere is some measure of consistency.

Legislative recommendation: Considerspecial provisions for those residing inthese forms of accommodation.Alternatively, consider making certainsections of the RTA apply for these forms ofaccommodation, even if the entire RTAdoes not apply.

13. provide housing securityfor mobile home park tenants

Provide adequate compensation for evictedMHP tenants. In many smaller communities acrossBritish Columbia, mobile home parks provide an impor-tant source of low-income housing. It is not uncommon forlow-income people to invest a significant amount ofmoney into the purchase of a mobile home that sits onrented land. These homes are often very difficult or im-possible to move. Yet currently, the law provides minimalprotections and compensation (12 months’ notice and 12months’ rent) for tenants whose landlord changes the useof the MHP (typically to rezone and develop the land).The 12 months’ rent is often shockingly inadequate com-pensation for evicted MHP tenants, who face high costsfor moving their home or, even worse, who cannot movetheir home and thus lose their investment.

Legislative recommendation: Amend s.44 of the MHPTA to significantly increasecompensation for tenants evicted fromtheir MHP for change of use.

Don’t require MHP tenants to cover land-lords’ costs of doing business. Currently, MHPlandlords are permitted (under the MHPTA and its Regu-lation) to apply for additional rent increases to cover costsof maintenance and upkeep even if these costs are reason-ably foreseeable. MHP landlords are also permitted tobuild in a “proportional amount” to their annual rent in-crease to cover increased utility costs, even if those costsresult from the landlord’s own failure to maintain infra-structure. All these costs should be considered part oflandlords’ cost of doing business (as they are under theRTA) and should be borne by the landlord, not the tenant.

Legislative recommendation: Amend s.32 of the Manufactured Home ParkTenancy Regulation to prevent landlordsfrom charging a “proportional amount” forutility charges caused by the landlord’sfailure to maintain. Amend the legislationto permit additional rent increases formaintenance and upkeep costs only whenthose costs are unforeseeable.

Notes

1 This recommendation applies equally to s. 32(2) of theManufactured Home Park Tenancy Regulation.

2 This applies equally to the MHPTA


Documents

BC's Residential Tenancy System