Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

View Royal residents question law that allows landlords to increase rent for repairs

About 50 tenants will face rent increases of $150 a month if the Halifax-based landlord’s application to the Residential Tenancy Branch is approved

Residents of a sprawling rental complex in View Royal say their landlord’s attempt to have them pay for roof repairs and paving — on top of an annual rent increase — might push some tenants out of the apartments entirely.

Sandra McMullen, a home-care worker who makes $22 an hour and pays $2,020 a month for a small two-bedroom, said she faces a potential $150-a-month increase.

“We’ve got a lot of seniors here, students … people who can’t afford to pay much more,” said McMullen. “For me, it’s a question of what are we going to do without now.”

Killam Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust owns the 161-unit series of apartment and townhouse buildings along a narrow peninsula on Portage Inlet.

The Halifax-based company has applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch for rent increases of $150 a month per unit on two apartment buildings, affecting about 50 tenants.

Residents say the company is taking advantage of the province’s Additional Rent Increase for Capital Expenditures, known as ARI-C, which came into effect in 2021 and allows landlords to transfer the costs of repairs to tenants through rent increases.

Critics say it targets those who can only afford to live in older buildings, as owners try to “upmarket” their properties to align with rents in newer places.

Landlords can apply for eligible repair work like replacing roofs, and the additional rent increase must be payable over 10 years and can be added to the allowable annual rent increase of 3.5%.

A hearing is set for July 30 before the Residential Tenancy Branch.

If it’s approved, tenants will be required to pay the extra $150.70 per month even after the capital expenditures are paid off, because the landlord isn’t likely to decrease the rent, said Conan O’Dell, whose wife and children live in the buildings.

He said the ARI-C legislation targets low-income communities, pushing the cost of building maintenance, which should be covered, onto the tenant, on top of allowable rent increases and regular rent — which are already “prohibitively expensive.”

Residents, who pay between $2,200 and $3,500, depending on the size of their suites, say no improvements are being done to their units. Those who move in or move around the complex are told the suites are “as is,” said one resident.

What really rankles the tenants is that Killam REIT, one of Canada’s largest real estate trusts, with a $5.2-billion portfolio of properties, reported a $127-million profit in its latest quarter.

Myrna Frizell, who has lived in the Hemlock building for 13 years, said she can afford the increase, but many others could be priced out of their homes.

She wants to know if the intention of the ARI-C legislation was to address the issue of landlords with small buildings who couldn’t raise their rents through the pandemic and now have some repairs.

“The smaller landlords may not have a big pile of money, so I can see this legislation helping them,” said Frizell. “But [Killam REIT] is a very prosperous company. They have all kinds of resources.

“Is that what the government intended … to fill the pockets of these already rich companies?

Killam REIT spokesperson Nirmanshu Shah said in an email on Friday that while the company’s application under the ARI-C process must include the entire cost of the capital improvements, the Residential Tenancy Branch “will limit any award to 3% per year for a maximum of three years, if it is approved at all.”

Many residents of the two buildings flooded View Royal council chambers this week, asking council to advocate to the province on their behalf.

Mayor Sid Tobias noted that ironically, some of those who might be forced out are pensioners on a fixed income, yet B.C. Pension Fund and Canada Pension invest in REITs such as Killam. “So the very pension funds that folks are receiving are actually profiting from making their lives less affordable.”

Added Frizell: “It’s like they’re putting money in one pocket and taking it out of the other.”

Council passed a motion to write letters to the Housing Ministry and Together Against Poverty Society, which advocates for tenants, about the situation.

Zuzana Modrovic of the Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre said calls from tenants about higher rents have increased since the province passed the ARI-C- legislation.

“As landlords are becoming more familiar with the policy, the applications are really ramping up as they start to know how easy it is to apply for an increase,” said Modrovic. “We try to help [tenants] with advice to be successful for hearings.”

From 2019 to this week, the Housing Ministry has received 368 applications under the ARI-C legislation. Of those, 186 applications have been granted — including 175 for capital expenditures — and 45 have been dismissed. Another 34 applications are classified as open while 45 have been withdrawn and two have been settled.

The Residential Tenancy Branch does not track reasons why applications are dismissed or publish dispute resolution data.

Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon said he could not comment specifically on the Christie Point case, as the matter is before the Residential Tenancy Branch.

But he said in a statement that ARI-C is “intended to strike a balance between affordability for renters while ensuring that landlords can make necessary repairs, and maintain their rental properties.”

The Christie Point apartments were built during the early 1960s as temporary housing when View Royal was unincorporated. In 2017, Toronto-based Realstar Group won rezoning from View Royal council to build seven buildings up to six storeys high containing 473 units on the site.

It created an uproar among residents who would have been displaced, but the project never happened and Realstar sold the property to Killam.

Note to readers: This story has been updated with comment from Killam REIT.

[email protected]

>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]