Manitoba Eviction Law 2025: Landlords Need Only Show a Significant Safety Risk in Trafficking Cases

The prior standard required showing an immediate risk to tenant safety; the amendment replaces that with a significant-risk standard, a meaningfully lower bar to clear.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Measures to Address Unlawful Activities), Bill 32, S.M. 2025, c. 28, amending s. 96(3)]

That shift matters in practice; a landlord previously had to demonstrate the danger was happening or about to happen right now, while the significant-risk standard allows a termination application to succeed based on a serious but not necessarily imminent danger connected to the unit.

Controlled substance trafficking, illegal cannabis sales, and human trafficking are now automatically treated as posing a significant safety risk, meaning a landlord doesn't need to separately prove the risk element once one of these 3 activities is established.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28, new s. 96(3.1)]

That automatic deeming substantially shortens what a landlord needs to show for these specific activities; a landlord still has to prove the underlying activity itself occurred, but once that's established, the significant-risk element follows automatically rather than requiring independent evidence.

A director can now weigh testimony from police, emergency responders, building staff, child welfare representatives, and community organizations, a broader evidence base than a landlord's own direct observation alone.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28, new ss. 154(1.0.2), 154(1.0.3)]

That expansion directly addresses a practical problem; trafficking activity is often deliberately hidden from a landlord's direct view, so allowing testimony from parties like police or community organizations who may have independent knowledge gives a termination application a realistic path forward even when the landlord's own evidence is limited.

Police and Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods investigators testifying under this provision can't be compelled to reveal confidential informants' identities or operational details that would compromise ongoing investigations.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28, new ss. 154(1.0.2), 154(1.0.3)]

That protection matters because it allows investigators to actually participate in these proceedings without jeopardizing separate criminal investigations; without it, an investigator might decline to testify at all rather than risk exposing a confidential source, which would have left landlords without a key evidence source despite the amendment's broader intent.

Even with the lower significant-risk standard and the automatic deeming for these 3 activities, a landlord still has to establish that the underlying unlawful activity, trafficking or human trafficking, actually occurred at the unit.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28]

A landlord relying on this provision needs to build an actual evidentiary case connecting the unit to one of these specific activities; the amendment makes the risk element easier to satisfy once that connection is shown, but it doesn't remove the need to show the connection itself.

Since the amendment specifically opens the door to testimony from police, emergency responders, and community organizations, a landlord building a termination case benefits from documenting incidents in a way that aligns with what those third parties might independently corroborate.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28]

A landlord who's reported suspicious activity to police or who has documented interactions with building staff about specific incidents is in a stronger position to benefit from this amendment's expanded evidence provisions than one relying solely on personal suspicion without any third-party record to point to.

The amendment singles out controlled substance trafficking, illegal cannabis sales, and human trafficking for automatic significant-risk deeming, rather than lowering the risk standard for unlawful activity broadly.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28, new s. 96(3.1)]

A landlord dealing with a different kind of unlawful activity at a unit, one not among these 3 specifically named categories, shouldn't assume the same lowered significant-risk standard automatically applies; this amendment's deeming provision is targeted specifically at trafficking-related conduct.

Since the amendment specifically replaces the immediate-risk standard with significant-risk for short-notice terminations generally, but only deems 3 specific activities as automatically meeting that standard, other unlawful-activity terminations may still require the landlord to actually demonstrate the significant risk rather than relying on automatic deeming.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28, ss. 96(3), 96(3.1)]

A landlord pursuing a termination for unlawful activity outside the 3 deemed categories should confirm with the Residential Tenancies Branch or a qualified attorney whether the significant-risk standard applies automatically or still requires independent proof for that specific type of activity.

A tenant contesting a termination application brought under this amendment should expect the director to potentially weigh testimony from sources beyond the landlord directly, including police and community organizations.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28]

A tenant disputing the underlying allegation needs to address that broader evidentiary picture, not just the landlord's own claims, since the amendment specifically expanded who can provide relevant testimony in these proceedings.

Since testimony from building staff is now explicitly recognized as potential evidence in these proceedings, a property manager should ensure staff document and report suspected trafficking-related activity consistently.

[Cite: Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, S.M. 2025, c. 28, new s. 154(1.0.3)]

A property manager who trains staff to document specific observations, dates, and details around suspected unlawful activity builds a stronger evidentiary record that can support a termination application under this amendment's framework, rather than relying on vague or undocumented staff impressions after the fact.

The practical starting point is training on-site staff to document specific, dated observations connected to suspected trafficking activity, since staff testimony is now explicitly recognized as part of the evidentiary picture under this amendment.

Building a working relationship with local police or Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods investigators for reporting suspected activity gives a landlord access to the kind of third-party testimony this amendment specifically designed the process to accommodate.