Hey Landlords, I wanted to write a follow up piece to my post – Landlord Registry – More Red Tape Solves Housing Crisis Since that article I had the privilege over the past few weeks to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed registry (R400) and changes to the M200 bylaw.

Many of those conversations were spirited with both local landlords and members of the Halifax council. I also clearly struck a nerve with some council members. I gained a new level of respect for some and a reduced level for others. I do believe that productive government requires people willing to provide opposition.

It also made me think that maybe I wrote my last article a little too pro landlord, and maybe it was a little too political. Ok, just a second, I still stand by my position that I do not think the addition of the Landlord registry or changes to the M200 bylaw will accomplish what council thinks it will, but that is just my opinion. I wanted to simplify the mountains of documents I have been pouring over the last couple of weeks and let my readers come to their own conclusion.

So here goes nothing: What if the landlord registry and changes to the M200 bylaw are a good idea?

Why would the HRM want to walk into what could be thousands of complaints that are currently handled by other divisions rather than 311.

I also want to to mention that the idea of a registry and the creation of the original M100 bylaw (currently being changed to M200) has been an ongoing council discussion. It is not a new idea.

Some evidence of this can be referenced from the discussion that Peter Kelly and his team had back in December of 2002 – document # 9.2.7 about the introduction of the M100 bylaw (which was passed in January 2003 Ref document 14.1.11 June 2016)

Here are some excerpts about the M100 which was changed to M200 from the June 2016 document.

The M-100 By-law was passed by Halifax Regional Council on January 7, 2003 and became effective on January 11, 2003. As stated in the original report, the purpose of the by-law was to:

1. Establish uniform regulations and standards for residential buildings throughout HRM (at the time there were five by-laws with various standards and some jurisdictions with no by-laws);
2. Ensure existing residential buildings are “safe, warm, and dry”; and
3. Specify reasonable “comfort and convenience” standards which go beyond simply providing basic
   “safe, warm, and dry” housing.

Then back in 2019 document 15.1.5 goes into the history of the M200 bylaw and the reasons for the need for a landlord registry as well as updates to the M200 bylaw.

Here are a couple of excerpts from this document.

By definition, registration is the disclosure or entering of information into public record. It is not approving the building condition, it is simply recording it. This allows for the collection of information beyond compliance and violation details. This information will be invaluable and will provide a much clearer picture of the rental landscape in HRM. For example, of 3,700 buildings analyzed in HRM’s current GIS database, only 57,000 rental units were identified versus the 61,380 (2011) identified in Stantec’s report. In addition, over 35% of HRM’s building records do not include unit counts. Currently, the accuracy and detail of building information available is limited. A complete record of rentals combined with simple, yet effective policy and regulation is expected to provide significant benefit for staff administering the program and for citizens occupying the buildings.

It is important to note that, as described in the Background section of this report, ongoing inspections are taking place in HRM as required under the Building Code Act, Fire Safety Act, and By-law M-200. It is apparent from the consultation process that a new framework for inspections will need to be developed.

Further to a staff report1 dated April 15, 2016, Regional Council adopted By-law M-200 in July 2016 which improved its general administration and enforceability. That report also identified many ongoing concerns
and regulatory matters with residential rental accommodations (i.e., rooming houses, single room occupancies) in HRM and recommended that staff engage with a variety of stakeholders to develop a residential building licensing model for Council’s consideration. This report 1) responds to the second part
of the June 2016 motion, 2) provides additional background information on the topic, 3) includes the results of the facilitated stakeholder workshop (Attachment A) and 4) provides a recommendation for a new approach to regulating residential rental accommodations.
To help understand the various components of building inspection responsibilities, the following overview is provided.

Building Inspection Requirements
The Municipality is responsible for inspecting buildings based on the following requirements:

1. Building Construction (Nova Scotia Building Code Act)
   All buildings in HRM under construction and/or renovation that require a building permit are
   inspected at various stages of construction and involve an application, review, and permitting
   process.
   Provincial and Federal government buildings are exempt.
2. Fire Safety Act Inspections (Nova Scotia Fire Safety Act)
   All occupied buildings (except residential buildings with less than 4 units) are inspected on a defined frequency by both Halifax Regional Fire & Emergency (HRFE) and Planning and Development (P&D). These inspections target fire safety and are generally limited to common areas of buildings.
   Only Federal government buildings are exempt.
3. Standards for Residential Occupancies (By-law M-200)
   Typically received as complaints through 311 Service Requests, occupied residential buildings are inspected by both P&D and HRFE inspectors, depending on building classification. These inspections are complaint-driven and may be limited to only portions of buildings when entry to
   rooms is restricted by locks.
   Rooming houses are the only building type that currently receive proactive inspections under the M-200 By-law. These buildings are registered annually through P&D and HRFE.
   Provincial and Federal government buildings are exempt.
   Two matters fall outside the scope of the inspection processes noted above. One is smaller residential (1, 2 and 3 unit) buildings and single room occupancies, and the other is the lack of proactive inspections of
   living spaces. These are key risk areas that Council has identified for further examination. An additional concern commonly raised by citizens is the lack of By-law M-200 application to provincially owned and
   operated buildings, however HRM does not have the authority to regulate provincial operations.
   Residential Tenancies Act – An area of confusion identified by attendees of the stakeholder’s workshops is the difference between the Nova Scotia Residential Tenancies Act and HRM’s By-law M-200. It has been suggested that the Province

See report online at http://legacycontent.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/160614ca14111.pdf
By-law M-200, Respecting Standards for Residential Occupancies
Council should be applying the Residential Tenancies Act to buildings with poor living conditions. By-law M-200 is the main regulation in HRM used to enforce standards for residential rentals. This is evidenced by the fact that matters relating to rental conditions are routinely forwarded to HRM by the provincial staff who administer the Residential Tenancies Act and Regulations. In comparison to By-law M-200, the language in the Residential Tenancies Act is somewhat subjective. Below are the first two clauses under Statutory Conditions, subsection 9(1) in the Residential Tenancies Act. These are the only clauses that deal with building conditions:
Statutory Conditions
“1. Condition of Premises – The landlord shall keep the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation during the tenancy and shall comply with any statutory enactment or law respecting standards of health, safety or housing.

2. Services – Where the landlord provides a service or facility to the tenant that is reasonably related to the tenant’s continued use and enjoyment of the premises such as, but not so as to restrict the
   generality of the foregoing, heat, water, electric power, gas, appliances, garbage collection, sewers
   or elevators, the landlord shall not discontinue providing that service to the tenant without proper
   notice of a rental increase or without permission from the Director.”
   By-law M-200 has detailed requirements that specifically identify the condition and habitability of the
   premises, such as minimum temperature requirements, pest control, ventilation, etc. This objectivity provides a clear understanding to the tenant and owner respecting the acceptable state of the unit.
   Currently, HRM takes responsibility for matters between the building and the owner (e.g., heat, pests, ventilation, flooring, etc.), while the Province takes responsibility for matters between the tenant and the owner (e.g., leases, payment, eviction, etc.).

Ok, enough about the past 20 years, lets determine if it is a good idea in 2022:

Pros to having a landlord registry (source based on information found in the Stantec report from February 12, 2017)

Report title: Halifax regional municipality residential building licensing model for Halifax stakeholder consultation report February 12, 2017.

Produced by Stantec Consulting Ltd. 102-40 Highfield Park Drive Dartmouth NS B3A 0A3
February 12, 2017

5.2 SUPPORT FOR LICENSING
The main reasons cited to support residential licensing of rental properties were as follows:
• Will create a database recording critical features of rental properties for HRM
administrators, emergency responders, and, within confidentiality restrictions, the public
• Offers a proactive, user pay-based approach to provision of inspection services
• Supports regular inspection to ensure the quality of rental accommodations and adherence to minimum standards
• Creates a convenient mechanism for enforcement through escalating fines leading to revocation of a license for repeated violations
• Creates a regulatory mechanism that does not rely on tenant initiative (recognizing that the imbalance between tenant capacities and resources often constrains their relationships with their landlords)
• Enhances tenant health and safety through preventative inspection to address building code deficiencies and maintenance issues, as well as improving the ability of fire and emergency agencies to respond appropriately and effectively
• Provides a tool to mitigate land use conflicts arising from occupancy and operation of rental accommodations as opposed to the inherent features of the land use. Regulators with HRM are very interested in developing a reliable record of residential occupancy. Fire and Emergency staff, in particular, would highly value reliable information on the number and key features of dwelling units so as to improve their response to calls. The same records would help Planning and Development staff to better regulate occupancy.

Regular inspection would further enhance record-keeping. It would ensure records are up-to date and would add information on condition and hazards lacking from existing occupancy records. It would also provide a device to support regulation by providing reference information needed to assess compliance and a readily invoked penalty (revocation of a license) in the event of violations.
The ability to assess accommodation without reference to the tenant would be valued by many tenants. Tenants and their representatives argue that they are at a disadvantage in the current complaint-driven system. Proactive inspection by qualified municipal authorities would circumvent the inherent inhibitions of tenants who fear that they will lose their accommodation if they “create trouble” for their landlords. A publicly posted record of landlords including complaints filed against them would also help tenants to avoid bad landlords.

I hope this combined with my other article will help you draw your own conclusion about the changes to the M200 bylaw and the introduction of R400 landlord registry.

I want to thank all the HRM councilors who took the time to respond with emails and phone calls. Also to all the landlords and groups who work hard everyday to keep our tenants safe & in well run properties as well as being passionate about positive change for our growing city.

I want to mention my appreciation for the following groups and others who have offered a ton of valuable knowledge based opinions, feedback and hours of time to the various reports I have been reading.

ACORN – Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
IPOANS – Investment Property Owners Association of Nova Scotia
Dalhousie Student Union
Dalhousie University
Saint Mary’s University
University of King’s College
Students Nova Scotia
Navigator Street Outreach (Halifax)
London, Oshawa, Waterloo and Hamilton, Ontario for the licensing bylaw comparison

Until next time,

Design your landlord experience,

Michael P Currie

Landlord by Design

P.S. you know I can’t end a post without providing an opportunity to buy a copy of one of my books.

If you do not already have them, hop over to Amazon and pick up a copy today.

Landlord by Design 1

Landlord by Design 2

One last thing – photo credit goes to MESSALA CIULLA