Vancouver couple says rent is increasing by 20% due to their newborn baby

A Vancouver family may be forced to move after receiving notice from their landlord that their additional occupant was going to raise the rent.

The additional occupant is their newborn child.

“We moved in here February last year, so we signed a one-year lease and then it would roll over to month to month,” Victoria Walsh told Global News.

“The suite is beautiful. We love our home. It’s a one-bedroom. And I was pregnant the whole time.”

She said she and her partner were managing as best they can with her being off work and having a new baby and her partner even got a promotion at work.

But then their landlord called them and said their rent was going to be raised another 20 per cent.

2:07 Maple Ridge family may have to move due to strata bylaw changes

Walsh said she couldn’t even wrap her head around it at first.

“It was a huge blow for us financially and really last minute. So ever since then, it’s been a struggle to comb through the legality of it and how to file the disputes and what are our chances of it getting enforced or not, and can he just take the money?

“And so ever since then, it’s just been like nonstop stress about how this is all going to unfold.”

Their rent has now increased from $1,895 a month to $2,274.

“It really hurts,” Walsh said. “It’s like everything is hard enough. And then to have that increase come because we have a baby just feels specifically harsh. We had a baby out of love and because we wanted to have a family, and it’s such an odd thing to get penalized for.”

She said it did state in their rental agreement that an additional occupant would mean a rent increase but she did not think it applied to a newborn baby.

“It also stated in our lease that it was as per the landlord’s discretion,” Walsh added, so they thought it wouldn’t apply to their child.

She said it wasn’t until the year lease ended that the 20 per cent increase was mentioned.

“I believe that 20 per cent is too high to be considered reasonable wear and tear for a baby,” she added. “It’s not like she’s doing dishes and cooking. She’s not even walking or eating solid foods.

“But he claims he’s allowed to do this and it’s another lease and it’s totally legal.”

The couple has decided to dispute it and will meet with the Residential Tenancy Branch on June 3.

Global News called the landlord but he hung up.

2:13 Data crunch provides snapshot of Lower Mainland’s current rental stock

Minister of Housing, Ravi Kahlon said he was “disappointed” to hear about Walsh’s situation.

“We know that most landlords work cooperatively with their tenants to make sure that they can accommodate people. And in this situation, they had a contract in place,” he said.

Kahlon said the government is looking at changes in the future to address this challenge but he hopes the landlord finds a way to accommodate the family.

“We know it’s not a quick fix,” he said. “It’s going to require coming back to the legislature.”

Walsh said she would like to see more protection for tenants who want families and to have children.

“I believe that anyone who looked at this issue would see that it’s preposterous,” Walsh said. “She’s a baby. She’s not a roommate. We’re starting a family. We’re not trying to game the system and have more paying adults than should be in our apartment.

“It’s just not what the law was written for or how it’s intended to be used, and it feels manipulative.”