Rent Increases: Quebec or Ontario, Which Protects Tenants Better?

Housing Law

Alexandre Lacroix · November 11, 2026 · 7 min read

The homelessness crisis in Quebec, closely tied to the shortage of affordable housing, is forcing governments to turn their attention to rents. Since Radio-Canada aired its investigative report “Portes à tout prix”, the subject of our article on “Cash for raise”, calls for tighter rent regulation have multiplied. On Radio-Canada on November 4, ahead of a large rally against real estate speculation at Place Jean-Paul-Riopelle, Québec solidaire spokesperson Ruba Ghazal pointed to Ontario’s rent increase caps as a model, in an interview (in French) you can listen to here.

Should Quebec really envy its neighbour in this respect?

The undersigned does not think so: because nothing controls the rent increase when a unit becomes vacant, Ontario’s rents compare unfavourably^[1] with Quebec’s. Ontario’s caps are also riddled with exceptions, so that increases tied to capital expenditures and taxes end up similar in both provinces. Moreover, only in Quebec can a new tenant have a rent reviewed when it exceeds what the previous tenant paid. A rent registry would undoubtedly give that protection its full meaning.

The Ontario model: a cap set in advance

Ontario licence plates bearing the slogan “Open for Business” — Since the Ford government took office, the lovely motto on Ontario licence plates has been replaced by “Open for Business”. The undersigned can confirm it: real estate speculators exist in Ontario too.

In Ontario, the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006^[2] regulates rent increases through a guideline that the minister publishes every year. Section 120 of the Act prohibits a landlord from increasing a sitting tenant’s rent by more than the guideline, which is calculated from Ontario’s consumer price index and capped at 2.5%. For 2026, it is 2.1%.

The increase works as follows: the landlord gives the tenant 90 days’ written notice, and the increase applies automatically as long as it falls within the cap. The tenant then has no right to refuse it.

In Ontario, a tenant cannot object to a guideline rent increase.

The Ontario cap has its limits

The 2.1% cap is not absolute. Section 126 of the Ontario statute allows a landlord to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for an increase above the guideline in three situations: an extraordinary increase in taxes, capital expenditures, or an increase in security costs.

For major renovations, the increase is limited to 3% per year, for a maximum of three years. The Court applied this cap in Helberg Properties^[3], where a Toronto landlord had obtained a 7.37% increase spread over three years for the repair of its building’s balconies. The Court allowed the increase, since the work served a purpose:

“While a capital improvement has an inherent cosmetic component in that the new balconies and railing would have a more ‘cosmetically pleasing appearance’ than the old rusted, deteriorating ones that they replaced, the test that must be applied is whether the work [is] ‘substantially cosmetic’ in nature. Based on the evidence before me, I do not find that to be the case in this instance. I am satisfied that the work undertaken to the balcony slabs and railings was necessary to ensure the integrity of the concrete balcony slabs and to address the rusting railings.”^[4]

Extraordinary municipal taxes, for their part, are subject to no cap at all. In Houston^[5], tenants in Waterloo faced an increase of 6% above the guideline — nearly 8% in total — because the city had introduced a mandatory rental housing licence and required electrical inspection certificates. Although the tenants wished to spread these costs over five years, the Court refused their request, since the increase had to reflect, in the lease, the increases tied to municipal taxes:

“[10] On November 18, 2015, Board Member Greg Joy issued an order, without reasons, authorizing an increase of 6.00% above the annual guideline, effective April 1, 2015. As a result, Julia Seirlis’ rent increased by 7.6 percent and Leslie Houston’s rent increased by 8 percent.

[…]

[79] Section 126(1) of the RTA does not seek to pass on the costs of routine maintenance to tenants. Instead, in keeping with the object of the Act, it seeks to pass on extraordinary increases in municipal taxes and charges in the same way such increases are ordinarily passed on to the occupants of dwellings owned by those occupants.”^[6]

Ontario’s cap raises rents in line with inflation, but it passes the bill for major work and extraordinary tax increases on to the tenant.

The Quebec model

In Quebec, the Civil Code sets no maximum percentage for rent increases. The landlord may, however, propose a new rent at the end of a lease, provided it respects the time limits of article 1942 C.C.Q. The notice must state the new rent in dollars, or the increase in dollars or as a percentage, and inform the tenant of his or her remedies.

Article 1945 C.C.Q. sets out what happens when the tenant refuses or remains silent:

“1945. A lessee who refuses the modification proposed by the lessor is bound, within one month of receiving the notice of modification of the lease, to notify the lessor of his refusal or to notify him that he is vacating the dwelling; if he fails to do so, he is deemed to have accepted the renewal of the lease on the conditions proposed by the lessor.”

In both cases, the tenant keeps the dwelling. In the event of a refusal, it is up to the landlord to apply to the Tribunal administratif du logement within one month of receiving the letter, failing which the lease is renewed on its previous conditions (art. 1947 C.C.Q.).

The criteria the Tribunal uses to fix the rent were simplified for notices given on or after January 1, 2026: a base percentage reflecting average inflation over the past three years (3.1% for leases beginning between April 2, 2026 and April 1, 2027), to which are added the portion of tax and insurance increases exceeding that percentage, as well as 5% of the cost of major work.

In Quebec, as in Ontario, the burden of going to the Tribunal rests on the landlord — whatever Ms. Ghazal may say.

Where Quebec truly protects better: the new tenant

The real blind spot of the Ontario regime lies in lease terminations, which, as in Quebec, are the object of fierce speculation. Section 113 of the Ontario statute provides that the lawful rent for a new tenant is simply the rent agreed between the parties. As soon as a unit becomes vacant, the cap disappears and the rent resets to market price. The 2.1% increase therefore protects only those who never move.

Quebec legislates differently, and to the benefit of tenants. Article 1896 C.C.Q. requires the landlord to tell the new tenant, in the lease, the lowest rent paid during the preceding twelve months: this is clause G of the mandatory lease form. And article 1950 gives the new tenant a remedy:

“1950. A new lessee or a sublessee may apply to the court to have the rent fixed if he pays rent that is higher than the lowest rent paid in the 12 months preceding the beginning of the lease or the sublease, unless that rent has already been fixed by the court.

The application shall be made within 10 days after the lease or the sublease is entered into. It shall be made within two months of the beginning of the lease or the sublease if it is made by a new lessee or a sublessee who has not received, from the lessor, when the lease or the sublease is entered into, the notice indicating the lowest rent for the preceding year; if the lessor has given a notice containing a false statement, the application shall be made within two months after the lessee becomes aware of that fact.”

The new tenant may therefore ask the Tribunal to bring the rent back to a level justified by what the previous occupant paid.

In Quebec, the rent follows the dwelling… at least in theory.

The protection of articles 1896 and 1950 C.C.Q.

Since the time limit under article 1950 is ten days, the tenant more often than not has no choice but to rely on the landlord’s declaration. Although the time limit is longer when nothing is written in the lease, or when a false statement was recorded, it is difficult to contest a rent under this article, which depends on rigorous investigative work.

In the undersigned’s view, this protection would take on its full meaning with a public rent registry. Such a registry, verifiable at any time by either party, would allow a new tenant to consult the rent history of the unit before signing the lease.

That right already exists in the Civil Code. All that is missing is a concrete tool to put it into practice.

Niagara Falls, Ontario — As Robert Charlebois’s song “Les talons hauts” suggests, there are things we can rightly envy Ontario for — its Niagara Falls, for example!

Interested? You can also read our article on residential leases and our article on repossession of a dwelling.

A free information session with Me Alexandre Lacroix

Have you received a notice of rent increase, or do you doubt the rent stated in clause G of your lease? Me Alexandre Lacroix offers to help you make an informed decision during a free, no-obligation information session.

Book an appointment

Statistics Canada, Average monthly asking rent and average monthly paid rent for a two-bedroom apartment, by census metropolitan area, second quarter of 2026.
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17.
Helberg Properties Limited v. Caldwell, 2015 ONSC 7863 (Div. Ct.).
Id., para. 19, quoting para. 14 of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s decision.
Houston v. 530675 Ontario, 2017 ONSC 6419 (Div. Ct.).
Id., paras. 10 and 79.

The content of this post is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every situation is unique — consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your case.

Signing a “Cash for Raise” Agreement: A Good Idea?