Summary#
Bill 59, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2), would amend Manitoba’s Residential Tenancies Act. It would set rules for rent increases when the director’s decision comes after the increase’s proposed start date, and for appeals of orders allowing increases above the permitted maximum. The bill’s stated goal is not given in the supplied text.
- If the director makes an order after the proposed increase date, the order would apply only to rental payment periods starting on or after the first day of the month after the order is made.
- A landlord must not charge an increased rent unless the director’s order authorizes it.
- In the specified late-order situation, a landlord may make a second increase within 12 months if it is at least 12 months after the first increase’s intended date in the notice.
- An appeal would not pause a director’s order on an application for an increase above the permitted maximum.
- The bill would let regulations set transitional or saving rules. It does not create a new agency.
What it means for you#
- Tenants: A late order could not authorize an increase for rental periods before the rule’s stated start point. You would not have to pay an increase unless the director’s order authorizes it.
- Landlords: You must get the director’s authorization before charging an increased rent. In the specified late-order case, the bill allows a second increase on the timing described above. Because that timing uses the first increase’s intended date, the actual increases could occur less than 12 months apart.
- People affected by an appeal: If a director orders an increase above the permitted maximum, an appeal would not pause the order.
- The director and government: The director would continue to decide applications; the bill does not set a decision deadline. The government could make transitional or saving regulations.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill sets no fee, fine, appropriation or cost estimate.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the current Act, so the existing rent-increase and appeal rules—and how these amendments fit with them—could not be verified.
- The bill does not explain what happens if the director refuses an application or changes the requested increase.
- It does not set timelines for decisions or appeals, or say how long an appeal may take.
- The terms “rental payment period” and “intended to take effect” are not defined in the supplied text.
- The text leaves the royal-assent date blank, so whether the bill has become law or is in force cannot be confirmed. If it receives royal assent, it says it comes into force 90 days later.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it gives a clear rule for late decisions: an approved increase applies only to future rental periods, not periods that have already begun.
- Requiring the director’s authorization before a landlord charges more could help prevent unauthorized increases.
- The exception for a later increase sets a specific timing rule tied to the date in the original notice.
Case against#
- One concern is that the exception could allow two increases less than 12 months apart in practice, because the second increase is timed from the first increase’s intended date, not necessarily when it took effect.
- An order allowing an increase above the permitted maximum could take effect while an appeal is still pending.
- The bill does not set decision or appeal timelines, so it does not say how long tenants or landlords might wait for a final outcome.