Alberta’s Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Amendment Act, 2020 adds an administrative dispute-resolution route to the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act. Landlords and tenants who could seek specified remedies in court may instead apply to the Dispute Resolution Service, subject to exceptions and future regulations.
The change is more than a new filing option. Once one party chooses the service, the other party generally cannot pursue the same or a related remedy in court unless the administrative application is withdrawn.
The bill also requires court clerks to check for an existing service application before accepting many court filings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill incorporates the dispute-resolution service created under Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act into the mobile-home-site tenancy regime. It allows eligible landlords and tenants to seek remedies through that service instead of court and gives regulations substantial control over procedure, authority, enforcement and appeals.
Who It Affects
The amendment directly affects landlords operating mobile home sites, tenants who own or occupy mobile homes on rented sites, court clerks and the tenancy dispute officers who handle administrative applications. Courts may also receive matters that regulations exclude or that the service must refer back.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a formal forum-selection framework for disputes that can otherwise proceed through provincial courts. Its practical impact depends heavily on regulations that will define available remedies, monetary limits, referral rules, fees, enforcement and appeals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds Part 5.1 to the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act and designates the dispute-resolution service established under the Residential Tenancies Act as the forum for this regime. The service receives jurisdiction and powers necessary to resolve disputes, while the administrator, tenancy dispute officers and other employees receive the authority already provided under the Residential Tenancies Act regulations.
A landlord may use the service instead of court when the landlord has a right to seek a remedy under Part 3. A tenant receives a broader parallel option for remedies available under Part 3 or for actions under Part 4.
The bill excludes certain proceedings, including specified applications involving section 32.1, applications to the Court of Queen’s Bench under sections 35 or 40(a), and other specific-performance or superior-court remedies identified in the Act.The legislation prevents parallel proceedings. If either party has already filed in court, the other generally cannot bring the same or a related claim before the service without first withdrawing the court application.
The reverse also applies: once one party files with the service, neither party may bring the covered or related dispute to court unless the service application is withdrawn. If court and service filings occur on the same day, the court proceeding continues and the administrative application is discontinued.The service must follow regulations, procedural rules and a code of conduct.
Regulations may determine when the service must or may refer a matter to court, when it may refuse an application, what remedies and costs it may order, how orders take effect and are enforced, and whether an order can be filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench for enforcement. Regulations may also create an appeal to that court on a question of law or jurisdiction.
The Act takes effect on proclamation, so the operative date and detailed framework depend on a later implementation step.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Court clerks must check, using a prescribed process, whether the Dispute Resolution Service already has a related application before accepting many court filings.
A party’s application to the Dispute Resolution Service binds the opposing party to that forum for the covered remedy and related remedies, unless the application is withdrawn.
The bill preserves specific court routes, including certain section 32.1 matters, applications under section 35, and a tenant’s application for specific performance under section 40(a).
Regulations may authorize service orders to be filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench and enforced as court orders, and may permit appeals on questions of law or jurisdiction.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may set application procedures, monetary limits, referral and refusal rules, fees and waivers, officer powers, remedies, service requirements and other operating details.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Amendment to the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act
This provision identifies the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act as the statute being amended. It supplies the legislative connection for the new dispute-resolution provisions rather than creating a standalone tenancy regime.
Court filing gatekeeping
The bill renumbers existing section 55 as subsection 55(1) and adds a new restriction: a court clerk cannot accept an application under that subsection unless the filing complies with new section 59.5.
The practical effect is to make the administrative-service check part of the court intake process. A claimant cannot simply bypass the forum-selection rules by filing first in court.
Definitions and designated service
The bill defines the Dispute Resolution Service, regulations and remedy. “Remedy” is broad: it includes orders, judgments, damages, compensation and other relief available under the Act.
Rather than establish a separate agency, the bill uses the service created under the Residential Tenancies Act. That approach may reduce institutional duplication, but it also ties the mobile-home process to a framework largely supplied by another statute’s regulations.
Who may use the service
Landlords may apply to the service instead of court for remedies available under Part 3, subject to listed exceptions. Tenants may use it for Part 3 remedies and Part 4 court actions, with an exception for a tenant seeking specific performance under section 40(a).
The section also bars a service application when a party has already filed in court for the same remedy or a related remedy, unless the court application is withdrawn. This makes the choice of forum consequential from the outset.
Binding forum choice
Once a landlord or tenant files with the service, the application binds the opposing party to that forum for the covered remedy. Neither party may then move the same or a related dispute to court unless the service application is withdrawn.
The provision is designed to prevent duplicative litigation and strategic switching between forums. It also means a party may lose access to a court route for related claims after the other party starts an administrative proceeding.
Pre-filing review by court clerks
Before accepting a court application under Part 3 or Part 4, a clerk must use the regulatory process to determine whether the service already has an application for the same or a related remedy. If one exists, the clerk cannot file the court application except as regulations permit.
The section addresses forum conflicts at the courthouse door. It also creates an operational dependency on regulations and on reliable information-sharing between the courts and the Dispute Resolution Service.
Procedures, referrals and service authority
The service may order remedies only within the authority and limits established by regulation. Applications, hearings and decisions must follow regulatory restrictions, prescribed practice rules and the code of conduct for the service.
The service must refer matters that regulations require it to send to court, and it may refuse or refer applications in other prescribed circumstances. The Act therefore creates the forum in principle but leaves much of the adjudicative architecture to subordinate legislation.
Regulatory framework
This section gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council broad authority to build the system. Regulations may cover monetary thresholds, applications, referrals, refusal rules, procedure, officer duties, remedies, costs, fees, fee waivers, forms, service of documents and the terms and enforcement of orders.
The regulations may also authorize filing an administrative order in the Court of Queen’s Bench for enforcement and provide appeals on questions of law or jurisdiction. Until those details are set, the bill does not by itself establish the full scope, cost or practical speed of the new process.
Commencement by proclamation
The Act comes into force on proclamation. This leaves the operative date outside the bill itself and allows commencement to be coordinated with the regulations and administrative arrangements needed to run the service.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Mobile home site tenants seeking lower-cost or more accessible remedies may gain an alternative to starting a court proceeding, subject to the service’s regulatory limits.
- Landlords may obtain a specialized forum for recovering remedies or resolving tenancy disputes without using the full court process.
- Court administrators and judges may see fewer covered tenancy matters and less duplication when the administrative system absorbs eligible disputes.
- The Alberta government can use an existing residential-tenancy dispute infrastructure rather than creating a separate adjudicative body for mobile home sites.
Who Bears the Cost
- Mobile home site landlords and tenants must understand and comply with a new forum-selection system, including the consequences of filing with one body before the other.
- Court clerks will need to perform additional checks before accepting covered applications and coordinate with the Dispute Resolution Service under procedures set by regulation.
- Tenancy dispute officers and the service administrator will take on an additional category of disputes, with related demands for training, records, procedural controls and enforcement coordination.
- Parties with complex or high-value claims may face uncertainty or additional expense if regulations require referral to court, cap administrative remedies or limit the service’s authority.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks an accessible, specialized alternative to court while preserving court supervision for matters the administrative system cannot handle. That efficiency depends on binding parties to an early forum choice and delegating critical safeguards to regulation, so the same design that can reduce duplication may also limit flexibility and make the quality of the eventual system depend on rules not contained in the Act.
The bill’s central operational risk is that its most important terms are not in the Act. Regulations will determine which claims the service can hear, the monetary ceiling for damages and compensation, available costs, filing fees, procedural safeguards, enforcement mechanics and appeal rights.
Until those rules are clear, stakeholders cannot reliably assess whether the service will be faster and less expensive than court or simply add another procedural layer.
The binding-election rules create a second tension. They prevent parallel proceedings and reduce the risk of inconsistent results, but they also make an early filing strategically important.
A party may choose the administrative route to control the forum before the other side has assessed whether court would offer broader remedies, stronger procedural tools or a more suitable process for related claims.
The court-clerk screening mechanism will also require accurate, timely records of service applications and clear rules for same-day filings, withdrawals and related disputes. The bill addresses the same-day conflict by prioritizing the court filing, but it leaves other edge cases—such as overlapping claims, partial withdrawals and disputes about whether two remedies are related—to regulations or later interpretation.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.