Bill 232 amends the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to make care-service and meal charges in care homes transparent, uniform, and subject to limits. Landlords must provide prospective and existing tenants with an information package that itemizes accommodation types, alternative care/meal packages and charges; charges must match that package, be the same for every tenant, and be reduced if services are reduced.
The Bill also creates a new, written-agreement route for additional services that tenants may later reduce or stop with 10 days' notice and that becomes part of the tenancy agreement.
The Bill imposes two key constraints on service and meal fee increases: landlords must wait at least 12 months between increases and may not raise charges in a year by more than the percentage set under the Act for annual rent increases (s.120(2)). Regulations may permit exceptions but cannot authorize increases above actual cost or that exceed an average 3% per year over three years, and landlords must justify such increases.
The Retirement Homes Act is also amended to require cessation notices to tell residents they retain RTA tenant rights and that a cessation notice is not a termination notice. Operators should expect new disclosure, recordkeeping and pricing constraints; tenants gain clearer remedies and more control over optional services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires landlords of care homes to deliver a specified information package before tenancy and to keep it current; it mandates itemized, uniform charges for care services and meals and requires commensurate fee reductions if services decline. It creates a written-agreement mechanism for add-on services that tenants can later reduce or stop with 10 days' notice and restricts increases to those charges in frequency (minimum 12 months) and amount (capped by the statutory annual percentage), with regulatory exceptions subject to tight limits.
Who It Affects
Retirement-home operators and licensees who charge bundled service or meal fees, current and prospective tenants (seniors) and their family decision‑makers, and the Landlord and Tenant Board and regulators who will enforce disclosures and fee rules. Small/independent operators that rely on bundled pricing will be particularly affected.
Why It Matters
The bill closes a legal gap that allowed service-fee component increases to function like stealth rent hikes, establishing a framework for transparency, uniformity and capped increases. It reallocates risk: it limits landlords' pricing flexibility while giving tenants clearer contractual and statutory remedies and creates practical compliance obligations — information maintenance, disclosure to third parties, and proof requirements for any regulatory exceptions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Before a new tenant signs a tenancy agreement in a care home, the landlord must hand over an information package that spells out the kinds of accommodation available, the alternative care-and-meal packages the operator offers, the charges for each accommodation type and package, and a fee schedule for any add-on services. The landlord must keep that package up to date, post the current version in an accessible place in the home, provide material revisions to tenants who received older versions, and — with the tenant’s consent — make packages available to family members or important people in the tenant’s life.
On pricing, the bill requires that charges for care services and meals be separately itemized in agreements and match the most current information package. The bill also bars operators from charging different prices to different tenants for the same service, and it obliges a landlord to reduce charges proportionally if the quantity or quality of a care service or meals is reduced.
Discounted promotional pricing must be documented in the agreement, including an end date; if no end date is specified, any subsequent increase above the discounted amount is constrained by the Act’s annual increase limits.The Bill creates a new statutory route for additional or optional services: landlords and tenants can sign a written agreement specifying add‑on services or meals, with the charges itemized and consistent with the information package. Those agreements are treated as part of the tenancy, but the tenant can require reduction or cessation of an added service by giving at least 10 days’ notice and will not be obliged to pay for the service after the date the landlord must stop providing it.
Agreements obtained through coercion or false/misleading representations are void.To restrain fee escalation, the Bill forbids landlords from increasing care-service or meal charges more often than once every 12 months and caps annual increases by reference to the percentage used elsewhere in the Act for rent increases (s.120(2)). Regulations may allow increases outside those limits but only within strict bounds: charges cannot exceed the provider’s cost for the service, any permitted departure cannot average more than 3% per year over three years, and the landlord must meet regulatory proof requirements to justify the exception.
Any noncompliant increase is void. Finally, where a retirement home is ceasing operations, licensees must include explicit language in notices telling residents they retain RTA tenant rights and that a cessation notice is not a termination under the RTA.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Landlords must deliver an information package before tenancy that lists accommodation types, alternative care-and-meal packages, and the charges for each.
Care-service and meal charges must be separately itemized, identical for every tenant in a care home, and reduced if the quantity or quality of services drops.
A written agreement under new s.141.1 can add services or meals to a tenancy; those agreements form part of the tenancy, are void if coerced or misleading, and can be reduced or stopped by the tenant with at least 10 days' notice.
Increases to care-service or meal charges cannot occur more than once every 12 months and cannot exceed the annual percentage set under s.120(2); regulations may allow exceptions but may not exceed cost or an average of 3% per year over three years and require landlord proof.
When a retirement home notifies residents it will cease operations, the notice must state residents keep their RTA tenant rights and that the notice is not a termination notice under the RTA.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rules on itemization, uniformity and discounts for care services and meals
This amendment inserts multiple new substantive rules into the tenancy section that governs contract terms. It requires separate line-iteming of care and meal charges, mandates that charges for identical services be the same for all tenants in a care home, and obliges landlords to cut charges when services are cut in quantity or quality. It also limits how undisclosed or open-ended marketing discounts operate: discounts must be written into the agreement with an end date, and if no end date is specified future increases are subject to the Act’s annual increase limits. Practically, operators must adjust billing systems and resident agreements to reflect uniform pricing and documented discount terms.
Mandatory information package and ongoing disclosure duties
The bill revamps the pre-tenancy disclosure regime for care homes. New subsection (1) specifies the minimum contents of the information package — accommodation types, alternative service-meal packages, charges and a fee schedule for add-ons — and subsection (3) imposes active duties: keep packages accurate, revise them as permitted changes occur, distribute material revisions to existing tenants who previously received the package, make the current package publicly accessible within the home, and share it with family or important persons when the tenant consents. These are operational obligations that will require version control, distribution logs and processes for consented third‑party access.
Statutory framework for written agreements for additional services
This new provision authorizes written post‑tenancy agreements for additional care services or meals, mandates that charges be separately itemized and consistent with the information package, and deems such agreements part of the tenancy. It voids agreements induced by coercion or misleading statements and gives tenants a 10‑day exit mechanism for reducing or stopping added services without payment obligation after the effective stop date. Operators will need written templates and clear consent/anti‑coercion practices, and must coordinate billing changes when tenants exercise the 10‑day option.
Limits on frequency and magnitude of fee increases and regulatory exceptions
s.149.1 first bars increases in service or meal charges more often than once every 12 months, then limits annual increases to the percentage applicable under s.120(2) (the Act’s rent‑increase formula). Regulations can create an exception process but are tightly constrained: they cannot allow charges to exceed the actual cost of providing the service, cannot permit increases that average more than 3% per year over three years, and must require the landlord to prove the increase is justifiable in the manner set out in regulation. The section also renders any noncompliant increase void, creating significant legal and financial risk for operators that fail to follow the new regime.
Cessation notices must state tenants retain RTA rights
This change requires retirement home cessation notices to include an explicit statement that residents continue to have the rights of a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act and that the cessation notice does not itself constitute a notice of termination under that Act. For licensees, this is a mandatory wording addition to closure communications and clarifies the interaction between retirement home licensing rules and tenancy law.
Commencement
The Act comes into force one year after Royal Assent unless proclaimed earlier. The delayed commencement gives operators, regulators and boards time to implement compliance systems, template agreements and the information-package processes required by the Act.
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/residents of retirement homes: gain clearer, written disclosure of fees and packages before moving in, uniform pricing for identical services, a statutory right to reduce or stop optional services with 10 days' notice, and protection against frequent or large service-fee hikes.
- Family members and decision-makers: with tenant consent, can access the current information package and material revisions, improving oversight and informed decision-making for vulnerable seniors.
- Consumer advocates and ombuds offices: receive statutory tools and clearer standards (uniform charges, itemization, voiding of noncompliant increases) to challenge exploitative pricing and represent residents.
- Provincial regulators and the Landlord and Tenant Board: get explicit statutory criteria and a regulatory pathway to adjudicate and police fee increases and disclosure practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retirement-home operators and licensees: face new compliance costs — building and updating information packages, changing billing systems to itemize and equalize charges, recordkeeping for distributions and consents, and preparing proof dossiers for any regulatory exceptions.
- Small or niche operators relying on bundled pricing or cross-subsidies: lose pricing flexibility; the uniform-charge rule may force restructuring of packages or absorption of costs that were previously offset across residents.
- Landlord and Tenant Board and tribunals: likely increased caseload and evidentiary complexity as tenants and operators litigate whether charges matched information packages, whether reductions were commensurate, or whether regulatory exceptions were properly justified.
- Accounting and staffing: operators may need to hire or reallocate financial and administrative staff to track cost bases of services, because regulations forbid increases that exceed the cost of provision and require proof.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting seniors on fixed incomes from opaque, frequent or large service-fee hikes and preserving operators’ ability to cover legitimately rising care costs. The bill hardens consumer protections and transparency but shifts financial risk and administrative burden onto providers; how regulators interpret ‘‘cost’’ and how tribunals apply the uniform‑price rule will decide whether the regime safeguards tenants without precipitating service reductions or financial strain on care-home operators.
The Bill leaves several implementation questions that will determine how protective or disruptive the new rules are. First, the exception mechanism in the regulations is pivotal: the Act permits regulatory carve-outs but confines them to increases that do not exceed cost and that do not average more than 3% per year over three years, and it requires landlord proof — yet the statute does not define what counts as ‘‘cost of providing the care services or meals,’’ what level of proof satisfies ‘‘justifiable in the circumstances,’’ or how indirect overheads and shared staffing are allocated.
Those definitional and evidentiary choices will shape whether regulators allow reasonable adjustments for inflationary shocks or effectively freeze operators’ revenue streams.
Second, the mandate that charges be the same for every tenant collides with the reality that residents often have individualized clinical needs and varying package uptakes; equal pricing for identical services is straightforward, but determining when services are sufficiently identical to require equal charges will create disputes. The rule also interacts awkwardly with subsidization models — homes that subsidize lower‑income tenants by charging higher rates to others may be forced to rework business models or reduce services.
Finally, voiding noncompliant increases imposes legal and retrospective financial exposure on operators; without transitional rules or explicit grandfathering for pending increases, a technical misstep in notice timing or documentation could nullify revenue operators had budgeted for.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.