British Columbia

Why does occupancy even matter in terms of the amount of rent? You're leasing the space. Maybe the argument is "wear and tear," or if utilities are included? Even so, $600/mo is a ridiculous amount even for an additional permanent adult tenant.

Something tells me that there might be more to this story. It sounds like the landlord wants these tenants out of the residence, and doesn't want to (or can't) go through an eviction proceeding. This nonsense amounts to "constructive eviction." Why does the landlord want these tenants out?

B.C.’s Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, told Global News Monday that this couple’s landlord should “give himself a head shake” but he is in a legal position to do this.

“I mean, this is the challenge that we have with sometimes landlords and tenants. Most landlords are good people and they operate in a good, transparent way. But this is a situation in which reminds us that we need to continue to find ways to strengthen the rules to ensure that the tenants are protected when they move into new places,” Kahlon said.

I really don't understand why people keep perpetuating the belief that vast majority of landlord are anything but for profit investors and society should treat them as such.

This loophole has existed and been used unfairly for a long time now I really don't understand why they haven't amended the RTA to at least cap the extra occupancy increase and exempt a reasonable amount of children.

Sounds like the baby is going to need to get its diapered ass down to the employment center on day one. Ain't no free ride here.

I am totally against biting landlords. Absolutely. I condemn people clawing landlords faces. Landlords are human beings that definitely shouldn't be punched in the face repeatedly, because they're not parasites.

B.C.’s Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, told Global News Monday that this couple’s landlord should “give himself a head shake” but he is in a legal position to do this. “I mean, this is the challenge that we have with sometimes landlords and tenants. Most landlords are good people and they operate in a good, transparent way. But this is a situation in which reminds us that we need to continue to find ways to strengthen the rules to ensure that the tenants are protected when they move into new places,” Kahlon said. “I mean, having a child should not mean that all of a sudden your rent should be going up 300, $400 over a short period of time. And so we’re going to be looking to make changes into the future.” Kahlon said in this case, he urges the landlord to do the right thing and make an exception for this couple. “But it’s a reminder that we have to make more protections for tenants because in the environment that we’re in right now, moving when you have a child is simply unacceptable,” Kahlon added.

This is infuriating. You are the fucking minister. Don't just nod along saying "we need to do better". DO BETTER. If the rules make no sense to you, get new rules. Yesterday. It's your fucking job.

Why are children being considered occupants?

Looks like this would be illegal in the USA: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/ASIAN_FAMILY_BLUE.PDF

Why in the world they didn't change the name of that PDF is beyond me.

Smart parents would have been collecting sublet rent for nine months from the fetus and investing it in Bitcoin.

Just say the baby is a pet primate. Problem solved.

“We also told them that my mom is coming to visit. The son said that my mom is going to be considered an occupant,” Maynard said.

It comes down to this:

• read your lease agreement
• don't assume your provider is your friend