Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act

Summary#

This bill creates a new process to address rental properties linked to illegal or harmful activity that affects nearby people. It lets a government Director investigate complaints and ask a rental officer for a “community safety order.” These orders can require people to leave a unit, end a lease, or bar people from coming back. The stated goal is to make communities and neighbourhoods safer.

• Main change: sets up a complaint-driven system targeting rental premises used for illegal liquor or drug activities, sexual exploitation, buying sexual services, gang or criminal organization activity, or related harmful uses.
• The Director can investigate, send warning letters, post community safety warnings, try informal fixes, or apply for a community safety order.
• A rental officer may order tenants or other residents to vacate, end tenancies, limit who may enter, or prohibit re‑entry, if the activity harms the community or poses an immediate serious threat.
• Complainant identity is protected. The Director can collect and share information with public bodies, local governments, businesses, and the RCMP (under federal privacy rules), and disclose to law enforcement or the Civil Forfeiture office.
• Residents who must leave may receive help finding other housing if they did not cause or contribute to the activity.
• Appeals are available through the Residential Tenancies Act. Not following an order is an offence with fines and possible jail (for individuals).
• Timing: starts on a date set by the Commissioner.

What it means for you#

• Tenants and other residents in rental housing

  • You could be ordered to leave, have your lease ended, or be barred from re‑entering if a rental officer finds your unit or building is habitually used for specified illegal or harmful activities, or if there is a serious and immediate threat.
  • Before ending a lease, the rental officer must consider whether innocent residents live there and whether children live in the unit.
  • If you are ordered to leave, you have 14 days to ask the rental officer to change or cancel parts of the order that affect you. You must show you (or your household member) did not cause or contribute, or the activity has stopped and is unlikely to resume, and that you would face undue hardship if the order stands.
  • The Director must try to see if you have other housing and may help you find short‑term or alternative housing. The Director does not have to help if they reasonably believe you contributed to the activity.
  • Failing to follow an order can lead to fines and, for individuals, possible jail time.

• Landlords

  • You can ask the Director for information, support, or assistance when applying under the Residential Tenancies Act about illegal activities in a unit (in set circumstances).
  • The Director may seek a community safety order that can end a tenancy. You or the Director can then apply for an eviction order based on that.
  • You may be a party to applications and appeals and will be notified if certain orders are filed with the Supreme Court.

• Neighbours and community members

  • You can file a confidential complaint if you believe illegal or harmful activities at or near a rental property are hurting your community or pose a serious and immediate threat.
  • You may see posted community safety warnings in some cases.

• Businesses and public bodies

  • If asked by the Director, you must provide relevant information and, if it is in your records, a copy of those records (for example, ownership, occupancy, or activity information). Public bodies and local governments must provide requested information and copies of records.
  • Information shared is confidential, but may be disclosed to law enforcement or the Civil Forfeiture office in set situations.

• Municipalities and Indigenous governments

  • As “local governments,” you may receive information requests from the Director and must provide information or records when requested.

• RCMP

  • May share records with the Director if allowed by a federal Privacy Act agreement. May receive information from the Director related to offences.

Note: The Act focuses on rental premises and residential complexes. It does not directly apply to owner‑occupied homes.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill would likely require staffing for a Director, investigators, complaint handling, and legal applications.
• There may be costs to provide short‑term or alternative housing assistance to displaced residents.
• Public bodies and local governments may face administrative costs to search for and provide records.
• Businesses may face compliance costs to provide copies of business records when requested.
• Law enforcement coordination and enforcement of orders may add costs. No estimates are provided.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to give the government and rental officers clearer tools to stop “problem properties” that harm neighbours and communities.
• A possible argument for the bill is that it targets serious issues such as illegal drug activity, sexual exploitation, and gang or criminal organization activity at rental sites.
• Confidential complaints and the ability to post warnings could be seen as encouraging reporting and early action.
• Orders can be tailored (limited to certain people or parts of a property), which could be seen as reducing harm to innocent residents.
• The requirement to consider children and non‑offending residents, and to help find alternative housing, could be seen as protecting vulnerable people.
• Annual public reporting could be viewed as improving transparency and accountability.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is the risk of eviction or displacement of innocent tenants and their families if an order ends a lease or requires people to leave, even when only some individuals were involved.
• The 14‑day window to seek changes to an order may be too short for some residents to respond or gather evidence.
• The Director’s broad power to collect and share information (including from public bodies and businesses) may raise privacy concerns, even though confidentiality rules apply.
• The evidentiary rules allow information based on “information and belief,” and there is a presumption that communities are harmed if a property is habitually used for specified illegal activities. This could be seen as lowering the threshold for strong enforcement actions.
• The Act limits court actions such as judicial review outside the built‑in appeal paths. This may raise questions about oversight and due process.
• It is unclear how often displaced residents will receive housing assistance, especially when the Director believes they contributed to the activity.