This bill changes how landlords recover capital expenditures through above-guideline rent increases under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. It forces landlords to file specified reports and proof with any LTB application for increases tied to capital work, carves out categories of work that cannot be passed through, and gives the Board explicit tenant-centered considerations when deciding whether to allow an increase.
The practical effect is a higher evidentiary bar for landlords and clearer guardrails for tenants: routine maintenance, cosmetic upgrades and work arising from a landlord’s failure to meet obligations are excluded from recoverable capital costs. That rebalances bargaining power around rent hikes, but it also creates new compliance steps and likely more contested hearings at the Landlord and Tenant Board.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires landlords applying for above-guideline increases tied to eligible capital expenditures to submit detailed evidence — including an engineering or professional report and documentation on why repair versus replacement is appropriate — and documentation that costs are arm’s-length. It also lists categories of ineligible capital expenditures and instructs the Board to exclude non-arm’s-length costs and government-funded amounts when calculating allowable increases.
Who It Affects
Landlords and property managers who seek above-guideline increases, tenants in rent-controlled units, legal advisers who prepare LTB applications, and the Landlord and Tenant Board staff who will assess expanded filings and adjudicate hardship claims. Entities that provide grants or rebates may find their assistance explicitly disqualifies cost recovery.
Why It Matters
By tightening what counts as recoverable capital costs and elevating tenant hardship factors, the bill narrows a channel for rent increases and raises the paperwork and proof landlords must produce. Compliance teams, property owners, and counsel will need new workflows to compile technical reports and provenance for costs before filing with the LTB.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new evidentiary checklist into section 126 of the Residential Tenancies Act. When a landlord asks the Landlord and Tenant Board for an above-guideline increase that is wholly or partly justified by a capital expenditure, the application must attach a set of documents and proof establishing the necessity and character of the work.
The statute lists six discrete items the landlord must provide, from an engineering or professional report showing the work is necessary for structural integrity, health, safety or a vital service, to documentation explaining why replacement (versus repair) is reasonable and proof that the transaction is arm’s-length.
Next, the bill narrows what counts as an "eligible capital expenditure." It categorically excludes work that is substantially cosmetic or intended to increase prestige, routine or ordinary maintenance done on a regular basis (the text gives examples such as elevator servicing, janitorial services, and routine appliance or HVAC repairs), and any work that results from the landlord’s failure to meet certain statutory obligations. Those exclusions prevent landlords from recovering costs for normal upkeep or upgrades that raise the unit’s luxury level.On adjudication, the Board must explicitly weigh tenant-centered factors: the share of income tenants spend on rent, the local vacancy rate, and local rent pressures and how they affect tenants’ ability to find alternative housing.
After considering those factors, the Board can dismiss an application for undue hardship with respect to a particular unit. The bill also instructs the Board to omit certain costs when calculating the allowable increase — specifically costs arising from non-arm’s-length transactions and any amounts paid or expected to be paid via government grants, rebates, subsidies or other financial assistance.Procedural and transitional changes round out the package.
The bill lowers the statutory language from "serious breach" to simply "breach" in certain provisions that allow the Board to pause or dismiss applications tied to landlord obligations, adds a transition rule preserving how pending applications are handled, and replaces section 129 with a new scheme that requires the Board’s order to specify the capital-related percentage and a prescribed date when the landlord must reduce rent. The landlord must notify the tenant at least 30 days before that date, and failing to do so triggers a penalty requiring repayment to the tenant of 1.5 times any overpayment.
The Act comes into force four months after Royal Assent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires landlords to attach six specific items to any above-guideline application based on eligible capital expenditures, including an engineering or professional report, evidence the work is not cosmetic or routine, lifecycle or repair-vs-replace justification, and proof the costs are incurred as part of an arm’s-length transaction.
It creates three categorical exclusions for eligible capital expenditures: substantially cosmetic or prestige-enhancing work; routine or ordinary maintenance (explicit examples listed); and work caused by the landlord’s failure to comply with certain statutory obligations.
The Landlord and Tenant Board must consider the percentage of tenants’ income spent on rent, the local vacancy rate, and local rent pressures, and may dismiss an application for undue hardship based on those factors.
When calculating an allowable above-guideline increase, the Board must exclude costs from non-arm’s-length transactions and any amounts that are or will be covered by government grants, rebates, subsidies or other financial assistance.
If the Board orders a capital-related increase, the landlord must give tenants at least 30 days’ notice of the date when rent will be reduced; failure to give notice requires the landlord to reimburse tenants 1.5 times any resulting overpayment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Required documentary checklist for capital-related applications
This new subsection mandates six evidentiary items accompany any above-guideline application that relies on an eligible capital expenditure. Practically, that converts what has often been a paper-light application into one that routinely includes professional engineering or comparable reports, lifecycle and repair-vs-replace analyses, and proof that the supplier relationship is arm’s-length. Expect applicants to engage consultants and to gather purchase and contract documentation before filing.
Definition of ineligible capital expenditures
The statute now lists three categories of work that cannot be claimed as eligible capital expenditures: cosmetic/prestige upgrades, routine or ordinary maintenance (with enumerated examples), and any work that results from the landlord’s failure to comply with specific statutory duties. That shifts certain borderline items (for example, replacing appliances that fail due to wear versus upgrading to higher-end models) toward ineligibility unless the landlord can convincingly show the expenditure meets the statutory test.
Board considerations, dismissal for undue hardship, and excluded costs
These subsections require the Board to weigh three tenant-focused factors (rent-to-income share, local vacancy rate, and local rent pressures) and give it express authority to dismiss applications that would cause undue hardship. They also legally bar the Board from including costs from non-arm’s-length transactions and amounts covered by government financial assistance when calculating the permissible increase. That creates two compliance axes for landlords: demonstrating necessity of the work and proving the financial provenance of the costs.
Lowering breach threshold and transitional rule for pending files
The bill replaces the phrase "serious breach" with "breach" in provisions that let the Board pause or dismiss applications — effectively lowering the threshold that may be used to deny or delay an application tied to landlord behaviour. It also includes a transition clause preserving the governing rules for any application filed before the act comes into force, limiting retroactive disruption to pending matters.
Order contents, tenant notice of rent reduction, and overpayment penalty
The replaced section 129 requires a Board order to state the percentage of the increase attributable to capital expenditures and set a prescribed date for a mandated rent reduction for continuing tenants. It obliges landlords to give tenants at least 30 days’ notice of that reduction date and creates a statutory penalty: if notice is not given and the tenant overpays, the landlord must repay 1.5 times the overpayment. Those provisions create both timeline obligations and financial deterrents for non-compliance.
Timing and title
The Act comes into force four months after Royal Assent and carries the short title Protecting Renters from Unfair Above Guideline Rent Increases Act, 2025. The delayed commencement gives affected parties a brief runway to adapt application processes, secure professional reports, and update internal procedures ahead of the evidentiary and notice rules taking 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
- Low- and moderate-income tenants in rent-controlled units — the tenant-centered dismissal power and the exclusion of routine or cosmetic costs reduce the likelihood of significant above-guideline rent hikes being passed through to households already spending a large share of income on rent.
- Tenants in buildings with historically related-party contracting — excluding non-arm’s-length costs curbs a common pathway for landlords to inflate recoverable expenses through affiliated contractors.
- Tenants facing housing search constraints — requiring the Board to consider local vacancy and rent pressures gives decision-makers a statutory basis to block increases where relocation options are limited.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landlords and property managers, especially smaller owners — they must obtain professional reports, assemble lifecycle and replacement analyses, and prove arm’s-length procurement, raising application costs and lead time before cost recovery.
- Landlords who rely on related-party contractors or on government grants to fund capital work — those funding arrangements will often be unusable for pass-through recovery and may reduce the net amount landlords can recover through rent.
- The Landlord and Tenant Board — expect a higher volume of contested and document-heavy hearings, which will increase adjudication time per file and place pressure on tribunal resources and timelines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting tenants from sudden rent increases tied to discretionary or ordinary work versus ensuring landlords can finance and promptly carry out capital repairs; tightening evidentiary and eligibility rules reduces unjustified pass-throughs but risks delaying needed maintenance and shifts upfront financial burdens onto owners, especially small landlords, while increasing tribunal workloads and regulatory complexity.
The bill raises immediate practical questions about implementation. The requirement for an "engineering or professional report" and documentation that costs are incurred at arm’s length pushes many landlords to retain consultants; smaller owners may struggle to absorb those upfront costs or the waiting time required before filing.
That raises a risk that necessary capital work will be deferred, potentially worsening building conditions if landlords delay repairs to avoid evidentiary burdens or loss of recoverable costs.
Another open question is how regulators will define key terms and prescribed rules referenced but not specified in the statute. The Act delegates the definition of "arm’s length" to regulations and refers to "prescribed rules" for timing and percentage calculations; those regulatory instruments will determine how broadly exclusions apply and how strictly the Board treats documentation.
The shift from "serious breach" to "breach" lowers a legal threshold that landlords may challenge in litigation: whether minor, technical breaches should block an application is uncertain and likely to result in legal argument and inconsistent early decisions. Finally, excluding government-funded amounts from allowable costs could produce perverse incentives: landlords may avoid applying for grants that would otherwise lower lifecycle costs if doing so prevents cost recovery through rents, complicating public policy coordination between housing funding and rent regulation.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.