Further changes in landlord/tenant legislation are necessary to enable tenants in British Columbia to deal on a basis of relative equality with their landlords. Among the specific changes still required are:

1. Recognition that a landlord must rent on a first come, first served bases except in carefully stipulated circumstances.
2. Amendments detailing three situations that require specific action regarding cleanliness and damage.
3. More clear cut definitions regarding noise levels and the responsibilities involved in alleviating avoidable noise.
4. Recognition that tenants are allowed all solicited visitors and may engage in all normal political activity.
5. Restrictions on the amount of security deposit required and the elimination of most key money and advance rent requirements.
6. Recognition of the right to form tenant associations to bargain collectively with individual landlords or associations of landlords.
7. Substantial revisions of the law regarding termination of tenancies so that the landlord may terminate only for specific statutory causes.
8. Provision for a provincial body to govern and control rent increases, with increases justified only by an increase in costs or a decrease in profit level for rental income when compared to income from alternative money markets.
9. Provision for a provincial Landlord and Tenant Bureau with jurisdiction to arbitrate issues arising out of items 1 through 8 above, to conciliate other items and to act as an advisory board.

In March of 1970, substantial changes were made to the B.C. law governing landlord-tenant relationships. Many of these changes were long overdue and are welcome. They include:

1. Putting the relationship onto an ordinary contractual basis in place of the former semi-feudal arrangement that give landlords many special privileges and tenants few, if any, rights. This change carries with it certain necessity and incidental changes in the law such as adoption of the doctrine of frustration and the usual rules governing breach of contract and mitigation of damages; all of which now apply to the relationship between landlords and tenants.
2. Abolition of landlords’ rights to distress (seize tenants’ goods) except where a tenant abandons the premises.
3. Better provisions governing security deposits, which are now limited to one month and on which the landlord must pay interest.
4. Permission for tenants holding leases longer than six months to assign or sublet.
5. Recognition of tenants’ right of privacy and protection of those rights.
6. Prohibition against interference by landlords with the right of political candidates to have access to the tenants.
7. Prohibition against landlords changing locks.
8. Provisions requiring landlords to maintain the premises in good repair.
9. A prohibition against rent increases for one year coupled with legislation against acceleration of rent payments.

While these reforms go some way towards eliminating former areas of abuse by landlords of their considerable power over tenants, the relative position of landlords and tenants is still weighted heavily in favour of the landlord. This situation exists largely because of three factors:

1. sharply increasing number of people requiring accommodation
2. increasing unemployment and consequent impoverishment and
3. failure to build a sufficient number of housing units to meet the needs of people, particularly those in low income brackets.

In short, the market situation does not allow relatively equal bargaining strength between landlords and tenants. It is, without any doubt, a market still heavily weighted in favour of the landlords.

Further changes in the legislation are therefore necessary to redress the imbalance and to enable tenants. The specific changes still required are:

1. Recognition of the principle that, except in stipulated circumstances, no landlord may lawfully refuse to rent vacant accommodation to the first applicant seeking that accommodation. The only negative stipulation would be:
   • where the prospective tenant lacks ability to pay the proper rent for the accommodation
   • whether the prospective tenant has a previous record of destructive activity in reference to the premises occupied by him and
   • where admission of the prospective tenant and family would result in an increase of the population density in that particular building beyond the limit fixed by municipal by-law.

     Any prospective tenant would be required to provide the potential landlord with relevant information on these three subjects; but unless one or more of the situations envisaged could be shown by the landlord to exist, the owner would not be entitled to refuse to rent the accommodation on a first come, first served basis. It would be an offence for the landlord to breach these requirements.

2. Once in occupation, the tenant’s responsibility for cleanliness and damage would be substantially as set out in section 49(2) of the Act; but the clause should be amended to take into account three different situations:
   • If there is a sudden breakdown of the facilities and the tenant must be responsible to report promptly to the landlord and, pending action by the latter, must take all reasonable steps to alleviate the emergency.
   • Landlord must take reasonable precautions against vandalism, but if any damage to the premises occurs, it is the landlord’s responsibility, while any damage to the tenant’s belongings would be the responsibility of the tenant.
   • Alternations to the rented accommodations may lawfully be made by the tenants to suit their needs so long as no substantial structural alternations are involved and provided the premises are restored by the tenant to their original condition or better on the termination of the tenancy.
3. As to noise levels, the law must recognize two categories; unavoidable (e.g. drawing water, walking and other noises created by normal use); and avoidable (e.g. playing radios or TV sets, fighting and dancing).

   With regard to the first category, it should be the landlord’s legal responsibility to provide a structure that cuts all avoidable noise to acceptable limits. This involves the need for province-wide standards of construction for all future multiple dwellings so that each living area is insulated from adjoining areas by the latest technological methods. In the case of existing multiple dwellings where sound insulation ins non-existent or of poor quality, reasonable standards must be stipulated in the municipal by-laws (and in unorganized territories by provincial regulation). Landlords should be encouraged to modify structures or provide facilities, such as rugs, to restrict avoidable noise. So far as avoidable noise is concerned, it would be the responsibility of the tenant to keep it within acceptable levels. If the noise is avoidable, upon the repeated complaints of two or more other tenants, the tenancy can be terminated by the landlord for cause.

4. Section 47 allows canvassing of tenants by candidates for political office. These provisions should be broadened to include all visitors for tenants except those who are unsolicited. The landlord would only be entitled to bar unsolicited visitors from access to the building. Tenants should also be expressly permitted to display election posters from their premises and to engage in normal political activity including voting in all elections in which home owners are eligible to vote. Organizing tenants’ associations should also be permitted, and landlords’ interference forbidden.
5. Section 37, which deals with security deposits, should have been made uniform throughout the province and municipalities should have power to enact by-laws on this subject. Moreover, no security deposit should exceed one-quarter of one month’s rent. Payment of rent in advance and of key money should be made unlawful except only that a landlord would be entitled to receive one-half of one month’s rent in consideration for holding the accommodation for occupancy at an agreed later date.
6. The right ot form tenant associations to bargain collectively with individual landlords or associations of landlords should be required.
7. Termination of tenancies now governed by Section 52 – 65 of the Act. In some respects, these are not satisfactory because they leave the rights of landlords to terminate tenancies intact as long as certain simple rules are observed. It is this right that chiefly accounts for the continuing dominant position of landlords.

   To redress the balance the following enactments are required:

   • Tenants should be expressly allowed, as long as they are not in breach of any stipulation in the lease, to terminate a tenancy without any reason. The only requirement should be appropriate notice and the provisions of sections 25 – 58 and section 63 would be suitable if made applicable to tenants only.
   • Allowing landlords the right to terminate a tenancy for only the following reasons:
     • non-payment of rent
     • damage to the premises
     • false information provided by the tenant regarding suitability for tenancy
     • tenant’s use of the premises for purposes other than those for which they were rented
     • tenant’s persistence in causing or allowing an avoidable noise
     • tenant’s refusal to allow the landlord to respect the premises with due regard to the tenant’s right to privacy as already provided in section 46 of the Act
     • a decision by the landlord to change the use of the building from housing to family use.
   • As to rent: section 51 envisages rent increases after the one year moratorium. While we do not oppose rent increases, we think they must be strictly governed and controlled, as otherwise the relative bargaining power of landlords and tenants will be heavily weighted against the tenant. Indeed a landlord could bypass all tenants’ right by the simple expedient of raising rents. We recommend that landlords be required to justify rent increases to a provincial landlord and tenant bureau.
   • Enforcement and administration: section 66 of the Act envisages landlord and tenant advisory bureaux established by municipal by-law. These bureaux, however, would be mediators and would not have any actual power. While we have no objection to this principle, we think that in certain situations and for certain purposes, tribunals should be established to hear and decide landlord and tenant disputes. We therefore suggest:
     • that a provincial landlord and tenant bureau be established with the advisory functions mentioned in section 66, but with additional jurisdiction to:
       • arbitrate those issues covered by this document
       • conciliate issues not covered by this document
       • refer parties to other agencies whose functions are covered by other legislation or by-laws (e.g. issues of health and safety).
     • It follows that the jurisdiction of th courts to deal with matters mentioned in section 60, 64 and 65a of the Act would be removed, although a right of appeal from the tribunal to the court on points of case would be allowed.
   • Miscellaneous:
     • Reduction in services: it would be a term of each tenancy that services contracted for by the landlord could not be reduced from those originally contracted for without concominant reduction in rent.
     • Pets: Tenants would be entitled to keep pets provided they are caged and give no offensive odour or noise.