LR25-20

Landlord appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed. The appeal is dismissed and Order LD25-106 is confirmed, subject to an updating of the interest earned on the security deposit.

Linked prior order: LD25-106

Order text

Date Issued: June 18, 2025 Dockets: LR25019 Type: Rental Appeal
INDEXED AS: DTI Rentals Inc. v. Bright Kojo Attipoe
2025 PEIRAC 22 (CanLII)
Order No: LR25-20
BETWEEN:
DTI Rentals Inc. (the “Landlord”) Appellant
AND:
Bright Kojo Attipoe (the “Tenant”) Respondent
ORDER
Panel Members: Pamela J. Williams, K.C., Chair
Gordon MacFarlane, Commissioner Compared and Certified a True Copy
(Sgd.) Michelle Walsh-Doucette Commission Clerk Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission

2
A. INTRODUCTION
1. This appeal was heard by the Commission on May 8, 2025, and asks the Commission to determine whether the Residential Tenancy Office, also known as the Director (the “Rental Office”), erred in finding that the Landlord must pay the Tenant $1,615.70 by April 24,
2025.
B. BACKGROUND
2. This appeal concerns a rental unit located at Room #2, 232 Hillsborough Street, Charlottetown, PEI (the “Rental Unit”). The Unit is a room rental with shared common areas in a 5-bedroom and 3-bathroom building (the “Residential Property”) owned by a corporate landlord.
3. In June 2024, the Tenant entered into a written, 6-month fixed-term tenancy agreement for the period of June 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. The rent was $800.00 due on the first day of the month. At the beginning of the tenancy the Tenant paid a $800.00 security deposit via e-Transfer.
4. On December 31, 2024, the Tenant vacated the Unit.
5. On January 17, 2025, the Tenant filed a Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute (the “Application”) with the Residential Tenancy Office (the “Rental Office”) seeking the return of the security deposit, including interest and double the security deposit.
6. On March 20, 2025, the Tenant participated in the teleconference hearing before an Officer of the Residential Tenancy Office. The Landlord representative did not attend.
7. On March 20, 2025, the Residential Tenancy Office issued Order LD25-106, which ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,615.70 by April 24, 2025.
8. The Landlord appealed Order LD25-106 on April 9, 2025.
9. The Commission heard the appeal on May 8, 2025, by way of telephone conference. Duy Nguyen (Louis) attended on behalf of the Landlord, DTI Rentals Inc., along with Tuan Pham (Thomas) a witness on behalf of DTI Rentals Inc. The Tenant, Bright Kojo Attipoe, attended on his own behalf.
10. The applicable legislation is the Residential Tenancy Act, cap. R-13.11 (the “Act”).
C. DISPOSITION
11. The appeal is dismissed and Order LD25-106 is confirmed, subject to an updating of the interest earned on the security deposit.

3
D. ISSUES
12. Did the Landlord comply with the requirements for retaining a security deposit under section 40 of the Act?
E. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
13. Mr. Nguyen testified that the Tenant initially wanted to enter into a new tenancy agreement but then a day later advised the Landlord that he wanted to move out. Mr. Nguyen testified that the Landlord kept the security deposit on the basis that the tenant had to provide one month notice before moving out. Mr. Nguyen testified that he had not filed an application to keep the security deposit. Mr. Nguyen testified that it took about a month to re-rent the room.
14. Mr. Attipoe testified that he decided he would not renew the tenancy agreement and advised the Landlord of this. He stated that other tenants were messing up the washroom and he was always the one who ended up cleaning it. Initially he was intending to move out at the end of January 2025. However, at the end of December 2024, someone came to view the room and showed interest in taking it. As a result, Mr. Attipoe said he packed up and moved to his new apartment which he had already paid for.
F. ANALYSIS
15. Based on the information before the Commission, the appeal is dismissed and Order LD25-106 is confirmed. Reasons for this decision follow.
16. In Order LR25-17 Xianfeng Yue and Ying Zhao v. Steve Dyer, the Commission considered in some detail in paragraphs 18 to 21 the matter of retention and return of security deposits set out in section 40 of the Act. These are mandatory provisions and neither the Rental Office nor the Commission has discretion to vary these provisions.
17. In brief, section 40 of the Act requires a landlord to either return the security deposit to a tenant or apply to the Rental Office to retain the security deposit. The application to retain the security deposit must be made within 15 days of the end of the tenancy. Section 40 does provide for exceptions set out in subsections 40(2) and 40(3).
18. In the present appeal, there is no evidence before the Commission that the Landlord filed a Form 2(B) application with the Rental Office. As no application was filed within 15 days of the end of the tenancy, and there is no evidence before the Commission that any of the exceptions set out in subsection 40(2) or 40(3) apply, subsection 40(4) requires the Landlord to pay the Tenant double the amount of the security deposit.
19. In addition, as of the date of the hearing before the Commission, there is no evidence that the Landlord filed a Form 2(B) to make a claim against the Tenant which could possibly be offset against the double security deposit award. Under subsection 75(1) of the Act, a party has six months from the termination of the tenancy agreement to file such an application with the Rental Office. Information to this effect is provided under the ‘Notes’ portion of the Form 2(A) filed by the Tenant.

4
20. Accordingly, the Commission agrees with the determination set out in Order LD25-106 and the Landlord must pay the Tenant the sum of $1,620.58 consisting of the following:
• Security Deposit $800.00 • Interest on security deposit from June 1, 2024 to March 20, 2025 $15.70 • Security deposit double award per subsection 40(4) of the Act $800.00 • Interest on security deposit from March 21, 2025 to Order date $4.88 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,620.58
G. CONCLUSION
21. The appeal is dismissed and Order LD25-106 is confirmed as the Landlord failed to comply with the security deposit requirements set out in section 40 of the Act.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The appeal is dismissed and Order LD25-106 is confirmed, subject to an updating of the calculation of interest on the security deposit.
2. The Landlord shall pay the Tenant the sum of $1,620.58 representing a double
security deposit award together with interest on the original security deposit.
3. The sum of $1,620.58 shall be paid to the Tenant within 30 days of the date of this
Order.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 18th day of June, 2025.
BY THE COMMISSION:
[sgd. Pamela J. Williams, K.C.] Pamela J. Williams, K.C., Chair [sgd. Gordon MacFarlane] Gordon MacFarlane, Commissioner

5
NOTICE
Subsections 89 (9), (10) and (11) of the Residential Tenancy Act provides as follows:
89. (9) A landlord or tenant may, within 15 days of the
decision of the Commission, appeal to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. I-11, on a question of law only.
(10) Where the Commission has confirmed, reversed or varied an order of the Director, the landlord or tenant may file the order with the Supreme Court.
(11) Where an order is filed under subsection (10), it may be enforced as if it were an order of the Supreme Court.