This bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to bring the service and meal components of retirement‑home fees under tighter rules. Landlords must itemize care and meal charges, keep those charges consistent with a mandatory information package, allow unbundling of service packages, and may enter written add‑on agreements for extra services that become part of the tenancy.
The bill also adds limits on how often and by how much those service charges can rise and makes non‑compliant increases void.
The bill likewise amends the Retirement Homes Act, 2010 to require operators who are ceasing to communicate clearly that residents retain their tenant rights under the Residential Tenancies Act and that a notice of cessation is not itself a termination notice. Together the changes aim to reduce surprise or exploitative fee hikes, improve transparency for residents and families, and constrain a common route landlords have used to increase housing costs without triggering rent rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds disclosure and substantive limits for care‑service and meal charges in care homes: requires a standardized information package, permits written add‑on agreements for extra services, and restricts increases in those charges by frequency and amount. It gives the government rule‑making authority to allow limited exceptions under prescribed conditions.
Who It Affects
Retirement‑home operators and owners that charge for care services and meals, residents (tenants) of care homes, family members and representatives who rely on disclosure, and the provincial regulator responsible for making and enforcing regulations under the Act.
Why It Matters
The bill converts previously loosely regulated service fees into a defined, auditable component of tenancy law: disclosure obligations create documentary evidence; ceilings and timing limits constrain pricing flexibility; and declaring add‑on agreements part of the tenancy strengthens tenants’ remedies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill forces retirement‑home landlords to be upfront about what residents are paying for care and meals. Before a new tenancy starts, landlords must give an information package that lists types of accommodation, available care/meal packages, their charges, and fees for additional services.
The landlord must keep that package current, post the latest version in a publicly accessible spot in the home, and provide material revisions to tenants who received earlier versions; with a tenant’s consent, family members can also get copies.
Service packages can no longer be sold only as an all‑or‑nothing bundle: the bill requires landlords to let tenants select components and pay only for what they want. Landlords and tenants may enter written agreements for extra services or meals after the tenancy begins; these agreements must itemize charges and match the information package.
Such add‑on agreements are treated as part of the tenancy, are void if obtained by coercion or misleading statements, and allow tenants to reduce or stop a specified added service with at least 10 days’ notice—after which they are not obliged to pay for the reduced or stopped portion.The bill places two concrete constraints on fee increases for care services and meals. First, landlords must wait at least 12 months between increases to a particular charge.
Second, annual increases cannot exceed the percentage set under paragraph 1 of subsection 120(2) for that year (the established rent‑increase guideline mechanism). The government may make regulations that permit increases outside those limits, but regulations must not let charges exceed cost, must not permit increases that average more than 3% per year over a three‑year period, and must require landlords to prove an increase is justified in the manner the regulations prescribe.
Any increase that fails to comply is void.Several cross‑cutting changes support enforcement and administration: agreements under the new section are explicitly part of the tenancy for the purposes of existing notice and dispute provisions, the Act’s regulation‑making head is expanded to cover the exceptional increase process, and the Retirement Homes Act now requires operators giving notice of cessation to tell residents they retain RTA tenant rights. The bill’s operation is delayed—its coming‑into‑force is set for up to one year after royal assent, allowing time for regulation drafting and transition planning.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A landlord must wait at least 12 months between increases to a particular care‑service or meal charge for tenants in a care home (new s.149.1(1)).
Annual increases to care or meal charges are capped at the percentage set by paragraph 1 of s.120(2) for that year (the rent‑increase guideline), unless regulations authorize an exception (new s.149.1(2)).
Regulations may allow otherwise‑impermissible increases but may not permit charges above the cost of provision, must cap increases at no more than 3% per year on average across a three‑year span, and must require landlords to prove the increase is justifiable (new s.149.1(4)).
An add‑on agreement for additional care services or meals must be written, itemize charges consistent with the information package, is deemed part of the tenancy, and is void if procured by coercion or misleading representations (new s.141.1(1)–(5)).
If a tenant gives at least 10 days’ notice to reduce or stop an added service or meal, the tenant is not obligated to pay for the reduced or stopped portion after the effective date the landlord is required to comply (new s.141.1(6)–(8)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Itemization, unbundling, equal charges and marketing discount rules
The bill expands s.139 to require separate line‑iteming of care and meal charges in the tenancy agreement and to mandate consistency with the information package. It forces landlords to permit tenants to pick individual services from a package rather than requiring a full package purchase, and it mandates the same charges for every tenant (no preferential pricing). The section also addresses marketing discounts: any discount must be set out in the agreement with an end date if there is one, and if no end date is specified then any later increase above the discounted amount is treated as subject to the Act’s annual increase limits—closing a common technique landlords use to disguise a permanent price raise.
Robust information‑package duties
This replacement tightens pre‑tenancy disclosure. The information package must list accommodation types, alternative care/meal packages, their charges, and a fee schedule for add‑on services. The landlord must keep the package accurate, revise it to reflect permitted increases, provide material revisions to prior recipients who remain tenants, make the current package publicly available in an accessible location, and (with tenant consent) share it with family or important persons. These duties create documentary paths for tenants and advocates to spot non‑compliance and to challenge mid‑term pricing or service changes.
Framework for post‑tenancy add‑on agreements
The new section authorizes written post‑tenancy agreements for additional services or meals, requires those agreements to itemize charges consistent with the information package, and deems them part of the tenancy. It includes consumer protections: agreements are void if secured by coercion or misleading statements, and tenants can give 10 days’ notice to reduce or stop a specified added service, after which they do not owe payment for what is reduced or stopped. Treating such agreements as part of the tenancy integrates them into existing remedies and notice rules under the Act.
Timing and quantum limits on service and meal charge increases
This provision bars increases to care or meal charges more often than once every 12 months and ties permissible annual increases to the percentage in paragraph 1 of s.120(2) (the rent‑increase guideline). It authorizes regulations to allow exceptions but constrains that power: regulations cannot permit charges above the cost of providing services, they cannot allow an increase that averages more than 3% per year over a three‑year period, and they must require a landlord to prove any exception is justified using the method the regulations set out. Non‑compliant increases are void, creating a legal remedy but leaving enforcement dependent on dispute or oversight mechanisms.
Notice of cessation must affirm tenant rights
The Retirement Homes Act change requires operators ceasing operations to include in their notice a statement that residents continue to have their residential tenancy rights under the Residential Tenancies Act and that the cessation notice is not itself a termination notice. The change aims to prevent confusion that might otherwise prompt residents to accept moves or forgo exercising rights when an operator stops operating the facility.
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
- Residents (tenants) in retirement homes — Gain clearer, itemized billing, a right to unbundle packaged services, and the ability to reduce or stop added services with short notice while avoiding charges thereafter.
- Family members and substitute decision‑makers — With tenant consent they get access to the current information package and material revisions, enabling better oversight and advocacy.
- Consumer and seniors' advocates — Obtain documentary duties (current packages, posted copies, revision notifications) that make systemic problems easier to detect and challenge.
- Tenants’ rights enforcement bodies and tribunals — Benefit from clearer statutory hooks (void increases, agreements deemed part of tenancy) that narrow legal disputes to discrete compliance issues.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retirement‑home operators and landlords — Face limits on a common revenue lever (service and meal fees), new administrative burdens (updating and distributing information packages, documenting cost justifications), and potential reductions in pricing flexibility.
- Small or margin‑tight care providers — May struggle to absorb rising wage, food, or regulatory costs if regulations limit permissible increases and require proof tied to cost.
- Provincial regulators and staff — Will need to draft and administer the regulations, review justifications for exceptional increases, and enforce compliance, which entails resource needs not specified in the bill.
- Third‑party service contractors — Could see renegotiations or pressure on contract rates if landlords cannot pass through increased operating costs to residents via service fees.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting vulnerable seniors from surprise or exploitative fee increases and preserving enough pricing flexibility for operators to cover real cost pressures. Tight limits and disclosure reduce abuse but may also squeeze providers’ margins, encouraging cost cutting, service reduction, or exits—outcomes that would harm the very residents the bill seeks to protect.
The bill fixes important transparency gaps but leaves several key implementation questions open. It does not define the scope of “care services” or which meal offerings fall within the charge cap, so landlords and regulators will need to draw those lines—choices that will materially affect what the caps cover and what providers may reclassify as separate, uncapped charges.
The regulation‑making process is consequential: the Act authorizes exceptions and requires landlords to prove increases are justifiable, but the bill defers critical standards—what evidence suffices, the timing and format for submissions, and the tribunal or administrative review process—to forthcoming regulations.
Enforcement is another weak point. The bill makes non‑compliant increases void, which provides tenants with a remedy, but it relies largely on tenants or advocates to identify and challenge violations.
Where residents are frail, uninformed, or lack legal help, the practical deterrent effect will be limited unless the province pairs the law with proactive inspection, public reporting, or a low‑cost dispute process. Finally, the interplay between the prohibition on increases above ‘cost’ and the three‑year/3% regulatory cap could yield perverse incentives: operators may reduce service levels or subcontract cheaper providers to comply, effectively shifting the impact from price to quality unless regulators anticipate and monitor such responses.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.