Information about service of the Notice of Dispute Resolution is in Section 3.1 of the Rules of Procedure. If the answer to this question is no, it doesn’t mean the application will be dismissed. It may allow the tenants to ask for more time though, especially if someone who wants to be involved in the process didn’t have sufficient time to prepare because of service issues.

A dwelling unit may be included in the calculations even if the landlord is not applying to increase the rent on that specific unit. These definitions are in Section 21.1 of the Regulation. If the answer to this question is no, it doesn’t mean the application will be dismissed, but it may impact the amount they are requesting from each tenant.

The Rent Increase Calculator can be used to help verify this. Incorrect math probably won’t get an application dismissed, but can impact the amount the landlord is requesting from each tenant.

In line with the Regulation, the landlord may not submit an application within 18 months of the previous application, unless the previous application was entirely unsuccessful.

• The application date will be explicitly stated in the Notice of Dispute Resolution Proceeding.
• Policy Guideline 37C now states “For clarity, the capital expenditure will still be eligible for an additional rent increase in these situations as long as the final payment for the project was incurred in the 18-month period.”
• Because there is no clear definition of “project”, this guideline is able to be abused by including unrelated work under one “project” to keep it inside of the required 18-month period.

Specifically, this means a grant, rebate, insurance claim, or lawsuit.

If so, that portion is ineligible.

If so, it is ineligible.

Arbitrators have permitted expenditures on these grounds even without evidence of when components / systems were installed.

Policy Guideline 40 is a guideline, not legislation. Just because something is a certain number of years old isn’t enough to make it eligible, at least if it is something that would not cause major negative impacts if it failed. For example, most finishes are still useful until they are damaged or pose a safety issue.

Arbitrators have permitted work that is part of the same “project” even when there is no clear requirement for the additional work.

For example, if the floor was old, damaged, and needed replacement, it would be at the end of its useful life. That work may require pulling off baseboards, but it shouldn’t require redoing all the drywall in the entire room. The floor may be eligible, replacement baseboards may be, the drywall may not be.

Maintenance requirements for elements are usually available from the manufacturer. The landlord should supply information on the elements that were replaced and the maintenance that was done. If they don’t, you may request it. You can use this information to determine if the proper maintenance was completed on the recommended schedule. If they refuse or are unable to provide this information, it may be an opportunity where “adverse inference” is appropriate on the part of the arbitrator.

• This answer to this question isn’t always clear. The answer is largely up to the arbitrator based on the arguments both parties (the landlord and the tenant) raise.
• The following examples are provided in Policy Guideline 37C (Page 2): Examples […] include, but are not limited to, the foundation; load-bearing elements (e.g., walls, beams, and columns); the roof; siding; entry doors; windows; primary flooring in common areas; subflooring throughout the building or residential property; pavement in parking facilities; electrical wiring; heating systems; plumbing and sanitary systems; security systems, including cameras or gates to prevent unauthorized entry; and elevators.
• Arbitrators have interpreted “building” very broadly, and have considered expenditures eligible even when in parkades that are open to the public, or are paid separately from the tenancy agreement.
• Items that must be paid for separately, such as if parking is an additional cost, may be argued as not a major system or component as they are not integral to the tenancy.

• Arbitrators have considered expenditures eligible even with no evidence of reduced energy use, only oral testimony by the landlord.
• As part of their evidence, the landlord may provide information on the elements that were replaced and the new elements. This information can be used to see if there are obvious energy savings according to the manufacturers.
• The landlord may also provide utility bills to show the reduction. It is important that causation be established, and that, for example, energy use isn’t decreasing because of a change in the weather instead.

If the boiler in the building was being replaced with a more energy efficient one, they don’t (generally) need to redo all the pipes in the building to make that happen.

Replacing security cameras (generally) doesn’t mean they need to repaint the entire room where it was installed.