Residential Tenancy Act Review

December 7, 2001

Residential Tenancy Act Revision

Did I miss the news coverage about revisions to the Residential Tenancy Act? Despite my best effort at media monitoring, I can find no coverage of the public consultation on a complete rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act.

At the December 5th Staged Cabinet Meeting, Solicitor General Rich Coleman announced that the Act would be revised and that the public had six weeks over the Christmas holidays to provide input. The consultation paper is buried so deep on the government website that it would take a digital archaeologist to find it. Within the 100 pages of pdf text, is an invitation to make a submission by January 31st.

A draft Act and opportunity for public comment is available. Go directly to it by clicking here for a 1.27 meg pdf file.

The opportunity for public input will end by January 31st.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General has invited public input with the following notice, but despite government's often spoken commitment to e-government, it didn't provide a submission form. StrategicThoughts has filled that gap. Click here for a one click easy submission form.

The Ministry invites readers to identify issues of interest or concern in the draft legislation and to suggest possible solutions. We want the resulting legislation to be as effective and efficient as possible in addressing the concerns and interests of both landlords and tenants.
Please provide feedback by January 31, 2002, to the Consumer Policy and Program Development Division, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General:
By mail: P.O. Box 9296 Stn Prov Gov't, Victoria, BC, V8W 9J8
By facsimile: (250) 953-4072
By email: rto-feedback@ag.gov.bc.ca

The 100 page consultation report consists of two 50 page sections, one on conventional tenancies and one on manufactured home parks. The current act will be split into two acts, one for each type of tenancy. Each of the 50 page sections consists of four pages which outline policy questions followed by a plain language draft act with the areas affected by the policy questions occupied by a place holder "to be developed following consultation."

The policy questions for conventional tenancies (see the full pdf file for the preambles to these questions) are as follows:

1. Rent review:
Should the current system of rent review as described above be retained? If so, are there any changes that should be made to the rent review formula, or the process for resolving rent increase disputes? If not, is there a better model for protecting tenants from unreasonably high rent increases?

2. Pets in rental units:
Should legislation be passed to regulate whether or not landlords can prohibit pets in rental units? Are there other options that would protect the landlord's property from damage and ensure the well being and safety of the landlord or other tenants, while supporting responsible pet owners in their search for rental housing?

3. Marijuana grow operations and drug labs:
Should BC landlords be permitted to evict tenants who engage in illegal activity, regardless of whether that activity is likely to impact negatively on the rental property or upon other tenants? Should this be a matter of contract between the landlord and tenant, or should the legislation codify a prohibition against illegal activity?

4. Security Deposits:
If the tenant vacates the rental unit without paying the final month's rent, a security deposit of one half a month's rent is insufficient to cover the unpaid rent. Should landlords be permitted to require a security deposit of a full month's rent to cover unpaid rent or damages to the rental unit? Should landlords who wrongfully withhold security deposits at the end of tenancies be subject to penalties for not having returned the deposits? Are there other options that would ensure landlords are compensated for unpaid rent or damages, while ensuring tenants receive their deposits back at the end of their tenancies?

5. Arbitration Process:
Is the current arbitration process efficient and effective in resolving disputes between landlords and tenants? Is the process for review of arbitration decisions fair, timely, and expert, and does it provide the desired finality to the dispute resolution process? Are there improvements that could be made to the arbitration and arbitration review processes to better serve landlords and tenants?

6. Enforcement of the Act:
Is the current enforcement process effective at ensuring compliance with the Act? In
addition to prosecution, are there other options to better ensure compliance with the Act,
and meaningful consequences for landlords and tenants who contravene the Act?

Discussion of manufactured home park tenancies begins on page 52 of the pdf file. Most of the questions posed are the same as for conventional tenancies, except for the following:

3. Long-term tenancies:
Should the proposed new Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act permit tenancy
agreements in excess of 20 years, to give home owners and park owners more flexibility
to enter into longer-term agreements? If so, should municipal approval be required for
long term tenancy agreements in manufactured home parks?

5. Manufactured home park rules:
Would a set of standard park rules be useful to park owners and home owners? Should
park owners have the authority to establish or change park rules, and if so, under what
circumstances? Should home owners have input to the rules in a park, and if so, what
type of input? Should the landlord be able to change the park rules on the assignment
of a tenancy agreement?

6. Age 55+ designation:
Should there be legislation or regulations governing how a park is converted to or
converted from a park for persons over the age of 55? If so, should park owners have to
get the permission of home owners to convert the park either to a 55+ park, or to
eliminate a 55+ requirement in a park?

7. Ending a tenancy for landlord use of property:
Is the notice period and compensation payable for ending a site tenancy for landlord use
of property appropriate and fair to both landlords and tenants? If not, what should the
current provision be replaced with?