This bill amends the Civil Code and the statute governing the Administrative Housing Tribunal to strengthen controls on rent increases. It creates a mandatory adjudication pathway: when a proposed rent increase exceeds a percentage set under the Tribunal’s criteria, the lessor must bring an application to have the rent fixed.
The bill also tightens what must appear in a notice of rent modification and shortens the exemption period that currently shields certain newly converted or newly built dwellings from rent‑fixing rules.
For landlords and property managers the measure raises procedural obligations and potential delay before a new rent can take effect; for tenants it creates an enforceable threshold that routes larger increases into the Tribunal process. The bill also gives the minister responsible for housing the power to suspend, for a given year, the regulatory provisions that set those percentages and to substitute rules the minister considers fair, with limited publication requirements for such orders.
Several regulatory and transitional edits accompany these changes and will affect how percentages are calculated and published going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires that, if a proposed rent increase exceeds a threshold determined under rules set by the Administrative Housing Tribunal, the lessor must apply to the Tribunal to have the rent fixed; otherwise the lease renews at the prior rent. It obliges notices to state the proposed new rent in dollars, the increase in dollars and as a percentage, and to warn that a mandatory fixing procedure will apply where applicable.
Who It Affects
Landlords and property managers across Québec—particularly owners of recently built or recently converted units—must comply with expanded notice content and potential Tribunal applications; tenants receive clearer notice and an automatic route to adjudication for large hikes. The Administrative Housing Tribunal and the ministerial housing office gain new rule‑making and suspension responsibilities.
Why It Matters
The measure converts a regulatory threshold into a trigger for mandatory adjudication, shifting some rent determinations from private negotiation into an administrative process. That increases legal and administrative friction around larger rent increases and centralizes the annual setting and publication of thresholds with the Tribunal and minister.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill tightens what landlords must say when they propose to change lease conditions. Notices must now display the new monthly rent as a dollar amount, the increase expressed in dollars, and the increase as a percentage of the current rent.
Where the proposed increase crosses a regulatorily determined threshold, the notice must explicitly tell the tenant that the rent will be fixed under the statutory procedure. That change is aimed at eliminating vague or partial notices that can obscure the magnitude of an increase.
Substantively, a threshold breach converts a routine notice into the start of a mandatory adjudication path. The lessor must apply to the Administrative Housing Tribunal to have the rent fixed within a statutory window tied to the existing notice timetable; if the lessor does not bring that application in time, the lease renews by operation of law at the prior rent.
The bill ties the threshold to percentages the Tribunal will determine annually, and it instructs the Tribunal to set different mandatory‑fixing percentages by heating type (unheated, electric, gas, oil). For dwellings newly erected or recently converted for rental use, the exemption period is shortened from five years to three years, and the applicable mandatory‑fixing percentages for those units are set 1% higher than the ordinary percentages.The Administrative Housing Tribunal gets explicit authority to establish these percentages annually and to publish them; the minister must approve and publish the Tribunal’s percentages but also gains a one‑year suspension power.
If the minister suspends application of the regulation in a given year, the minister may issue an order prescribing alternative rules the minister sees fit; that order is exempt from the regular publication requirements under the Regulations Act. The regulation itself is adjusted: definitions and some prior calculation references (notably the definition of “net income”) are removed, and the Tribunal’s annual percentage determinations replace some earlier formulaic lines.Finally, the bill contains transitional language that preserves the prior regime for notices or leases sent or entered into before specified dates, but the text leaves those dates to be filled in on assent.
That means practitioners should expect a one‑month window after assent to be the operative start date unless the placeholders are changed in final drafting.
The Five Things You Need to Know
If a proposed rent increase exceeds the regulatorily determined threshold, the lessor must file an application to have the rent fixed with the Administrative Housing Tribunal within six months after the statutory deadline for giving the notice of modification; failure to apply causes the lease to renew at the same rent.
The notice of modification must now state three separate figures: the proposed new rent in dollars, the dollar amount of the increase, and the increase as a percentage of the current rent, plus a clear warning that the rent will be fixed where the threshold is exceeded.
The five‑year exemption that sheltered newly erected or recently converted rental dwellings from the usual fixing rules is reduced to three years, but those units are still subject to the mandatory fixing procedure when a proposed increase passes the applicable threshold (and their threshold percentages are set 1% higher).
The Administrative Housing Tribunal will establish annually the percentages that trigger mandatory rent fixing and will set a distinct percentage for units heated by unheated/electric/gas/oil systems; the minister must approve and publish those percentages, but may suspend their application for a given year and substitute ministerial rules.
The bill removes the regulation’s definition of “net income” and strikes several calculation‑related paragraphs from the regulation, shifting the statutory basis for percentage setting toward Tribunal‑determined, application‑based averages.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Stricter notice content and explicit warning when threshold exceeded
This amendment forces notices to include both the increase in dollars and as a percentage alongside the proposed new rent, tightening prior language that allowed either/or presentation. It also adds a mandatory sentence telling tenants that if the proposed increase exceeds the regulatory percentage the rent will be fixed under the specified procedure. Practically, this increases the information landlords must assemble before serving notice and reduces ambiguity tenants can later exploit in disputes about what was proposed.
Limits on tacit acceptance and preservation of mandatory fixing procedure
The bill narrows the scope of cases where a notice or tacit acceptance can produce immediate changes to the lease by carving out situations where the proposed increase crosses the mandatory‑fixing threshold. Critically, it adds that a tenant’s apparent agreement to a large increase cannot waive the statutory fixing procedure, preventing landlords from sidestepping tribunal review by obtaining a tenant’s written consent.
Mandatory application to have rent fixed when threshold is exceeded
This is the operative enforcement mechanism: where a proposed increase surpasses the percentage determined under the Tribunal’s criteria, the lessor must apply to have the rent fixed within a fixed six‑month window tied to the notice timetable; otherwise the lease is renewed at the existing rent. This flips the usual dynamic: instead of the tenant petitioning in objection, the landlord must initiate adjudication for a large increase to take effect.
Shorter exemption period for new or recently converted dwellings
The bill reduces the exemption period from five years to three for dwellings in recently erected buildings or those recently converted to rental. It also makes clear that during that shortened exemption window these dwellings are subject to the new mandatory‑fixing thresholds, with the applicable percentages increased by 1%. That narrows the temporary market‑based flexibility previously afforded to new rental stock.
Tribunal sets percentages annually; ministerial approval and suspension power
The new section tasks the Tribunal with establishing annually the percentages applicable to the criteria for rent fixing and the specific increase thresholds that trigger mandatory fixing. The minister must approve (with or without amendment) and publish those figures, but the minister can suspend application of the regulation for a year—after consulting the Tribunal—and prescribe alternative rules to "ensure a fair balance"; such suspension orders are exempt from normal Regulations Act publication requirements. This centralizes the annual numeric rule‑setting in the Tribunal while giving the minister an executive override for exceptional years.
Shift from income‑based formulas to Tribunal‑determined percentages by heating type
The regulation is edited to remove the definition of “net income” and to strip certain calculation paragraphs, replacing them with a framework where the Tribunal determines percentages annually, including distinct thresholds for unheated, electric, gas and oil‑heated dwellings. The regulation instructs the Tribunal to base percentages on an ‘‘estimated average basic adjustment’’ calculated from the proportions observed in Tribunal applications during a reference period. For the short‑exemption dwellings (three‑year category) the percentages are increased by 1%.
Grandfathering and placeholders for effective dates
The bill contains transitional clauses that preserve the pre‑existing rules for notices and leases sent or entered into before specific dates; those dates are left as placeholders to be filled in on assent (not yet set in the text). It also sets the coming‑into‑force date to one month after assent (placeholder). Practically, stakeholders should watch the final enacted dates because they determine which notices and leases are subject to the new regime.
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 receiving large proposed increases — they get clearer, quantifiable notice (dollar amount, dollar increase, percentage) and an automatic Tribunal pathway for any proposal that exceeds the threshold, reducing the need for ad hoc litigation to contest large hikes.
- Tenants in recently built or converted units — by shortening the exemption from five to three years and applying mandatory fixing thresholds (with an added 1% buffer), the bill reduces a window where steep, market‑driven increases could otherwise proceed without Tribunal scrutiny.
- Rent adjudication advocates and the Administrative Housing Tribunal — the bill formalizes an annual, data‑driven threshold process that can increase predictability and concentrates technical percentage‑setting authority in the Tribunal where application data are available.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landlords and property managers —they must prepare more detailed notices, may need to initiate Tribunal applications for large increases, and face potential delays and legal costs before receiving the new rent.
- Small-scale landlords and new developers — the shortened exemption and the need to pursue Tribunal action for higher increases add administrative burden and may compress revenue recovery timelines for recent construction or conversions.
- The Administrative Housing Tribunal and housing ministry —the Tribunal will absorb a likely increase in applications and annual rule‑setting work, and the ministry may need to administer one‑year suspensions and alternative rules when invoked, creating resource pressures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is straightforward but stark: protect tenants from unexpectedly large, opaque rent hikes by routing threshold breaches into an adjudicative process, or preserve landlord flexibility and speedy market adjustments by keeping threshold enforcement lighter and more negotiable. The bill solves the first problem at the cost of added administrative burden, potential delays in rent recovery, and the risk of politicized or opaque annual percentage adjustments.
The bill creates several practical and legal fault lines. First, it shifts the burden to landlords to initiate Tribunal proceedings for any large increase to take effect; that can produce timing friction where landlords prefer quick rent adjustments but must await application outcomes.
The upshot is predictable protection for tenants but potential cash‑flow and administrative strain for owners, especially small landlords who may lack in‑house legal teams.
Second, the statutory text and regulatory edits introduce interpretive and transparency issues. The regulation removes the definition of “net income” and cuts calculation paragraphs, while replacing them with Tribunal‑driven percentage setting based on application data — a move that could make thresholds reactive to past adjudication patterns and less transparent in structure.
The minister’s power to suspend the percentages for a given year and substitute rules, combined with an exemption from the Regulations Act publication requirement for such orders, raises concerns about accountability and predictability: stakeholders may face abrupt, executive‑level changes with limited public notice.
Third, the drafting leaves open technical ambiguities and practical sequencing problems. The bill refers to applying to have the rent “fixed” within a statutory window, but the interaction between Tribunal timelines and other Civil Code notice deadlines could generate procedural disputes (for example, whether timely filing requires simultaneous service to the tenant, or how interim occupancy and rent take effect).
Finally, transitional clauses include placeholders for effective dates; until those dates are set, stakeholders cannot determine precisely which notices and leases will be grandfathered, complicating immediate compliance planning.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.