Summary#

Bill 38 would create a new law, not amend an existing Act. The bill’s short title is the Protecting Vulnerable Persons in Supportive Living Accommodation Act, 2022; the title supplied for this bill calls it the 2023 Act. Its stated goal is to establish a framework for licensing some supportive living accommodations.

• An operator would need a licence from the Minister to run a residential premises where at least four people who are not related to the operator live and receive assistance with daily activities from the operator or as arranged by the operator.
• The licensing requirement would not apply to several listed types of premises, including long-term care homes, retirement homes, hospitals and certain residential services for people with developmental disabilities. Regulations could add other exemptions.
• The Minister would decide whether to issue or renew a licence and could cancel a licence or impose conditions. A licence would apply only to the named operator and premises, and could not be transferred.
• Licensed operators would have to follow licence conditions and standards set by regulation, and post the licence prominently. The Minister would have to set up a way for residents and the public to complain about alleged violations.
• The Minister could appoint inspectors, who could inspect under rules set by regulation. Operating without a required licence would be an offence, with a fine of up to $1,000 for each day the offence occurs or continues.

What it means for you#

• Operators: If your premises meet the bill’s four-person threshold and are not exempt, you would need a licence. You would have three months from the law’s start date to operate without one. After that, a breach could lead to a fine.
• Residents and the public: You would have a complaint mechanism for alleged violations. The bill does not promise a particular outcome from a complaint or require inspections in every case.
• People using excluded premises: The bill would not apply its licensing requirement to the types of premises it lists. It does not set out individual rights to a place in supportive living accommodation or guarantee a particular level of service.
• Current requirements: The supplied material does not show what licensing or standards already apply under other laws, so the bill’s full effect alongside current rules cannot be verified.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s expected costs.

• The bill does not specify a budget, staffing level, licence fee, or amount of public spending.
• It would allow fines of up to $1,000 per day for operating without a required licence.
• Operators could face costs to meet licence conditions and standards, but the bill does not state what those costs would be.

What is unclear#

• The bill leaves application rules, licensing decisions, renewals, cancellations, and standards largely to regulations.
• It does not set inspection frequency, complaint handling steps, response times, or an appeal process for most licensing decisions. It allows regulations to create a review process for licence cancellations.
• “Assistance in daily activities” is defined broadly, but the bill does not explain how regulators would decide whether a particular arrangement meets the four-person threshold.
• The supplied material does not say what regulations would prescribe, when they would be made, or how the law would interact with existing requirements.
• The bill text says it would start on Royal Assent, but the supplied material does not establish whether it received Royal Assent.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to set common licensing requirements for some residential premises where operators arrange daily assistance for residents.
• A licence, required standards and possible inspections could provide tools to check whether covered premises meet set requirements.
• A complaint mechanism could give residents and members of the public a way to raise alleged violations.
• Exempting premises already covered by several named laws could avoid applying this bill’s licensing requirement to those types of accommodation.

Case against#

• Much of the system depends on regulations not included in the bill, so operators and residents cannot tell from the bill what standards or application rules would apply.
• The Minister could impose licence conditions at any time, while the bill does not spell out a review process for those conditions or most licensing decisions.
• Inspections are allowed, not required at set intervals. The bill does not ensure that every covered premises would be inspected.
• The licensing rule could leave similar arrangements treated differently depending on whether premises fit one of the listed exemptions or a later regulatory exemption.