Here's a strange video clip from mid-April. As far as I can tell (their coverage of this was cryptic at best) the FMTA made a statement in mid-April about Bill 23:
https://torontorentersforum.com/video/yaroslava-fmta-press-conference-queens-park-early-2026.mp4
In the clip, the FMTA's executive director got up on the podium at Queen's Park, and over the Legislative Assembly's official label, she referred to herself, and I think Euridice, as "fellows" of the M.P.P.'s who moved the bill. But in a Facebook post of this she doesn't name either the sponsoring members, the subject of the bill, or the even the bill's name! Everything is a plug for the FMTA!
Let's all get a dose of reality here. Formally known as the Protecting Seniors' Rights in Care Homes Act, Bill 23 is a Private Member's Bill introduced by opposition NDP M.P.P.'s Jessica Bell, Chandra Pasma, Chris Glover and Lise Vaugeois.
Bill 23's main goal is to close a massive financial loophole affecting seniors who live in *retirement* homes and care homes, rather than clinical Long-Term Care (nursing) facilities.
The Loophole That Bill 23 Tries to Close
In Ontario, retirement homes are treated as a hybrid space. Renting a room is governed by standard tenant laws, meaning landlords can only raise the rent by the official annual provincial guideline (usually around 2.5%).
However, the services provided—like meals, nursing checks, laundry, and medication management—have virtually no price caps. Currently, a retirement home operator only needs to give 90 days' notice before spiking the cost of meals or care packages by any amount they choose. This allows corporate operators to bypass rent control entirely by masking a housing cost increase as a "service fee" increase.
How the Bill Protects Seniors
If passed, Bill 23 would fundamentally change how these homes operate by treating care services exactly like rent:
● Caps on Care and Meal Fees: It restricts operators from raising the price of meals and care services by more than the annual rent control guideline.
● Frequency Restrictions: Service fees could only be increased once every 12 months, mirroring standard tenancy rules.
● Itemized, a la carte choices: It stops landlords from forcing seniors into all-inclusive bundles. If a resident only wants to pay for lunch but not dinner, or needs help with medication but doesn't want laundry service, they can choose those services individually.
● Opt-Out rights: Seniors could cancel any extra service agreement they signed by giving just 10 days' notice, completely stopping their obligation to pay for it.
● Eviction protections: If a retirement home decides to shut down operations, the bill forces operators to explicitly notify residents that they maintain full tenant rights and cannot be immediately thrown out.
The Legislative Reality
Because this is an opposition Private Member's Bill, its chances of passing into law under a majority government are slim. It has passed its initial stages and sat at the Second Reading stage, but without the backing of the ruling party, these bills are almost always stalled indefinitely or voted down in committee.
I think it's important to show support for progressive ideas, but there are ways of doing it - like issuing a media release that contains detailed, specific reasons WHY “xyz” issue is important - without looking like a jackass.
...