This Nanaimo senior challenged years of rent increases, and won

When Shane Conn’s rent went up significantly a year after moving into a Nanaimo independent living facility, he was concerned.

The next year, it happened again. He read a pamphlet from B.C.'s Office of the Seniors Advocate suggesting the increases might not be legal.

So he challenged them at the Residential Tenancy Branch, and won.

But the benefits from that win — nearly $9,500 in rent deductions to cover the overpayments and limits on future increases — apply only to him. They don’t apply to any of his neighbours, unless they too go through the same months-long administrative process Conn did.

Which, for the 80-year-old, was a challenge.

"They request a whole variety of different documentation such as a copy of your lease, a copy of our letter explaining why the rent increases had been, I thought, illegal, some rent statements, and I sent that into them," Conn said. "It’s a long, complicated process. It's not easy for seniors."

Conn’s case may have implications for other B.C. seniors in independent living facilities.

Here’s how it played out:

B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act limits how much rent can be increased each year for existing tenants. In 2023 and 2024, the facility increased Conn’s rent by six per cent and 5.4 per cent, respectively, according to the RTB decision.

The maximum allowable rent increases in those years under the Act were two per cent for 2023 and 3.5 per cent for 2024.

Conn argued the increases to his rent were more than what was allowed under the Act.

Retirement Concepts, which runs the Nanaimo complex where Conn lives, argued his unit was part of a health facility that provided hospitality and personal health care, a type of residence that is exempt from the Act.

The residence runs on a campus of care model, which means there are independent living, assisted living and long-term care residences within the same community, the company said in its response.

Conn argued he and his wife live in the independent living section of the community, which means they receive meals and light housekeeping as part of their rent. They do not receive support with health care, such as transportation to and from appointments or assistance with medication. Therefore, he argued they do not live in a health facility and the Act should apply.