Bill 13 amends Manitoba’s Residential Tenancies Act to require landlords to file information about each rental unit with the Director of Residential Tenancies, create a process to remove older tenant orders from public access, mandate periodic reviews of rent-regulation rules, and increase administrative penalty authority and maximum fines.
The package is procedural rather than redistributive: it creates a unit-level data obligation for landlords, narrows public access to certain adjudicative records after a fixed period (with safety exceptions), formalizes repeated review of rent rules, and expands enforcement tools. Compliance, data governance, and administrative capacity will determine how intrusive or effective these changes feel in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new duty (section 68.2) requiring landlords to file prescribed information about each rental unit in a form acceptable to the director and to update that information within 30 days of change. It creates a five‑year review cycle for rent regulation, removes public access to most tenant orders after seven years (subject to safety/unlawful-activity exceptions), and raises the maximum administrative penalty to $10,000.
Who It Affects
Private landlords and their agents who operate rental units in Manitoba must collect and file unit-level data and keep it current; the Director of Residential Tenancies gains new registry and review duties; tenants gain stronger privacy for older adjudicative records; property managers, enforcement officers and defence counsel will confront new evidentiary and compliance workflows.
Why It Matters
The bill centralizes unit data with the director and gives the director recurring review responsibilities and stronger enforcement tools — a shift toward more active administrative oversight of rental markets. For landlords it creates a recurring compliance task and a new potential source of regulatory exposure; for tenants it creates a clearer route to seal older records and to limit public disclosure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a mandatory unit-level filing requirement. Landlords must provide the director with the rental unit’s address and description, the landlord’s legal name and contact details, and contact information for any agent who handles repairs, rent collection or tenant documents; regulations may add other prescribed fields.
The director determines the acceptable form and manner of filing. Filing must occur within one year after the section comes into force or within 30 days after the first tenancy agreement for the unit — whichever is later — and landlords must file updated information within 30 days of any change.
On access and privacy, the bill bars public access to a decision or order made against a tenant once seven or more years have passed, unless the decision involved impairment of safety or unlawful activity. Tenants can apply to the director to have orders removed earlier; the director’s decision on such applications is final and not subject to appeal, and a refused applicant may reapply after one year.
The statute carves out safety-related orders from the routine seven-year removal and restricts early removal for those cases until seven years have elapsed.The director must review rent-regulation provisions and related regulations at least once every five years, beginning with a report due no later than December 31, 2027. The review requires public consultation and consultation with the advisory committee; the minister must table the director’s report in the Assembly within the next 15 sitting days after receipt.
Finally, the bill strengthens enforcement: it authorizes administrative penalties for failure to comply with director orders and raises the maximum administrative penalty in the Act from $5,000 to $10,000, while updating cross-references so the director’s authority to issue penalties is broader in scope.Two implementation notes matter operationally: several of the new provisions (the unit-filing requirement and some enforcement amendments) come into force by proclamation rather than immediately on royal assent, so the director and minister retain time to set forms, rules and processes; and the bill gives the director broad discretion over filing formats and the finality of certain privacy decisions, which places weight on the director’s administrative rules and internal procedures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 68.2 requires landlords to file unit-level information (address, unit description, landlord legal name/contact and agent contact) in a form acceptable to the director and to update it within 30 days of any change.
Filing timing is phased: landlords must file within one year after the provision comes into force or within 30 days after the first tenancy agreement for the unit — whichever is later.
Section 179.0.2 removes most tenant-related decisions and orders from public access once seven years have passed, but exempts orders tied to impairment of safety or unlawful activity and limits early removal in those cases.
Section 140.1.1 requires the director to review rent-regulation provisions at least once every five years, beginning with a report due by December 31, 2027, after public and advisory-committee consultation; the minister must table the report in the Assembly.
The Act expands enforcement: it authorizes administrative penalties for noncompliance with director orders and increases the maximum penalty from $5,000 to $10,000.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Permits showing a unit after termination notice
The bill amends the access provisions to add an explicit exception allowing landlords to show a rental unit to prospective tenants after the tenant has received a notice of termination but before they vacate. The explanatory note also states the landlord must provide at least 24 hours' notice to the current tenant before showing the unit; that creates a temporal safeguard while enabling marketing activity during the notice-to-terminate period. Practically, landlords can restart viewings once termination is served but must observe the notice requirement; tenants retain quiet enjoyment subject to that limited showing window.
Unit-level filing requirement and update duty
This is the bill’s operational core: a new mandatory registry duty. Landlords must file specified fields for every rental unit in a format acceptable to the director and must update the registry within 30 days of any change. The statute leaves the filing form, additional prescribed fields, and other procedural details to the director and regulations, giving administrators flexibility to set technical standards and validation rules but also creating a risk that compliance burden depends on future rulemaking. Timing is phased to give landlords time to register existing units while capturing new tenancies quickly.
Five‑year review of rent-regulation regime
The director must conduct and report a review of rent-regulation provisions and associated regulations at least every five years, with the first report due by Dec. 31, 2027. The review requires public consultation and consultation with the advisory committee, and the minister must table the report in the Assembly. This establishes a statutory cadence for regulatory reassessment and places the director in an evaluative role that stretches beyond single-file adjudication into policy review.
Limits on public access to older tenant orders
The bill bars public access to decisions or orders against tenants once seven years have passed, unless the matter involved safety or unlawful activity. Tenants may also apply to the director to have an order removed earlier; the director’s determinations on such applications are final, without appeal, and a refused tenant can reapply only after one year. The provision balances record expungement with an explicit safety exception and hands finality to administrative discretion.
Broader administrative-penalty authority and higher fines
Several provisions update cross-references to confirm the director’s authority to issue penalties under the Act and expand the scope of review by adjudicative bodies where noncompliance is alleged. The bill increases the maximum administrative penalty in the Act from $5,000 to $10,000 and explicitly authorizes penalties for failing to comply with director orders. That makes noncompliance a costlier risk for landlords and agents, and it signals a shift toward administrative enforcement rather than relying solely on court remedies.
Staggered coming-into-force by proclamation
Most of the Act comes into force on royal assent, but the filing requirement (section 3) and certain enforcement amendments (sections 6–9) come into force on a day fixed by proclamation. That lets the government set up the director’s forms, IT, and procedures before the registry and enhanced enforcement begin, but it also creates a regulatory depend‑on which administrative readiness will determine practical effect.
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
- Tenants seeking privacy: Tenants with older adverse decisions will generally see those records removed from public access after seven years, reducing long-term reputational harm and potential barriers to housing.
- Prospective tenants and landlords seeking turnover efficiency: Allowing showings after termination notice (with notice to the occupant) helps landlords re-let units faster and gives prospective tenants earlier access to available units.
- Policy makers and tenant advocates: The five-year mandatory review creates a predictable mechanism to reassess rent rules and allows advocates and the public to participate on a statutory schedule.
- Rent-administration staff and compliance units: The director gains clearer statutory authority and tools (including higher penalties) to enforce orders and push for compliance, which can improve regulatory leverage.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landlords and property managers: They must compile, submit and keep current unit-level data in a director-acceptable format and face higher maximum administrative penalties for noncompliance — an added compliance cost and operational task.
- Small and private landlords without compliance infrastructure: Those owners may need to upgrade recordkeeping, engage third-party agents, or pay administrative fees to meet filing and update deadlines.
- The Director of Residential Tenancies and government: The director must build and maintain the registry, run five‑year reviews with consultations, and administer removal applications and penalties — requiring staff, IT and procedural resources.
- Legal service providers and tenant-support organizations: Increased administrative enforcement and non-appealable director decisions on record removal may shift disputes into administrative workflows that still generate demand for legal advice and representation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding tenant privacy and regulatory oversight on one hand and imposing new reporting burdens and enforcement exposure on landlords on the other: the law tries to protect tenants’ future rental prospects and improve administrative oversight while simultaneously requiring landlords to disclose unit-level data and face stiffer penalties — a trade-off that hinges on how the director designs filing systems, safeguards data, and exercises discretionary powers.
The bill delegates significant implementation choices to the director and to regulations: the filing ‘form and manner’ is not specified in the statute, and the director’s discretion affects who can access records and how quickly orders are removed. That means compliance costs, privacy outcomes and enforcement intensity will depend heavily on regulatory design and administrative resourcing rather than the statute alone.
If the director adopts a technically demanding electronic filing standard without transitional support, small landlords could struggle to comply.
The provisions that bar appeal of the director’s determination on record removal create a notable administrative finality. While finality can streamline decisions and reduce litigation, it concentrates power in the director’s office and raises procedural fairness questions when removals are denied.
The safety and unlawful-activity exception is sensible public-safety policy, but the statute leaves room for interpretation about what kinds of findings qualify; that can cause inconsistent application unless the director issues clear criteria or guidance. Finally, the new registry raises data-governance issues: the bill requires landlords to file personal contact information for landlords and agents, which engages privacy law, records-retention and security obligations not detailed in the Act.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.