LR26-33

Landlord appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed. The Appeal is dismissed. Order LD26-131 is confirmed. The Landlord and Bhaskar remain jointly and severally liable to pay the Tenant a return of rent together with double the security deposit and applicable interest.

Linked prior order: LD26-131

Order text

Date Issued: July 15, 2026 Dockets: LR26025 Type: Rental Appeal
INDEXED AS: UOPLUS Inc. v. Jashandeep Kaur and Akshay Bhaskar
dba ACC-AK Corporation 2026 PEIRAC 42 (CanLII)
Order No: LR26-33
BETWEEN:
UOPLUS Inc. (the “Landlord”) Appellant
AND:
Jashandeep Kaur (the “Tenant”) Respondent
AND:
Akshay Bhaskar dba ACC-AK Corporation (“Bhaskar”) Respondent
ORDER
Panel Members: Gordon MacFarlane, Commissioner
Pamela J. Williams, K.C., Chair 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 June 3, 2026, and asks the Commission to determine whether the Residential Tenancy Office (the “Rental Office”) erred in finding that the Landlord must pay the Tenant $5,364.78 by June 22, 2026.
B. BACKGROUND
2. This appeal concerns a rental unit located at Unit 7 – 21 Ashburn Crescent, Charlottetown, PEI (the “Rental Unit”).
3. The Rental Unit is an apartment in a multi-unit building owned by the Landlord.
4. On June 11, 2025, the Tenant paid Bhaskar a $1,775.00 security deposit for the Rental Unit. On June 13, 2025, the Tenant paid Bhaskar $1,775.00 for July 2025’s rent. The Tenant did not move into the Rental Unit because it was eventually rented to someone else.
5. On July 11, 2025, the Tenant filed a Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute (the “Application”) with the Rental Office, seeking a return of rent and the security deposit.
The Tenant served the Application to Bhaskar by email.
6. On August 25, 2025, the Rental Office sent the Tenant and Bhaskar notice of a paperbased hearing with a first submission deadline of September 4, 2025.
7. On September 5, 2025, the Rental Office sent the Tenant and Bhaskar a 114-page PDF evidence package with a response submission deadline of September 11, 2025.
8. On September 16, 2025, the Rental Office sent a 13-page PDF response evidence package to the Tenant and Bhaskar.
9. On October 2, 2025, the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the “Commission”)
issued Order LR25-46, which is similar to this dispute, as it involved the Landlord, the Landlord’s representative (the “Landlord’s Representative”) and Bhaskar, but a different rental unit and a different tenant.
10. On October 14, 2025, the Director added the Landlord as a party to this matter under section 81 of the Act, and all parties were notified of the continuation of the paper-based hearing. A copy of the Application and all evidence submitted to date was sent to the Landlord. The Landlord was given a submission deadline of October 31, 2025.
11. On October 16, 2025, the Rental Office sent the parties a copy of Order LR25-46, which was added to the record as Director’s Evidence.
12. On October 31, 2025, the Landlord requested an extension to the evidence submission deadline. The Landlord was given an extended submission deadline of November 7, 2025.

3
13. On November 7, 2025, the Landlord requested another extension to the evidence submission deadline. The Landlord was given an extended submission deadline of November 14, 2025. Due to technical difficulties, the Landlord’s evidence submission deadline was extended to November 27, 2025.
14. On November 28, 2025, the Rental Office sent the Landlord’s additional evidence (a 129- page PDF) to the Tenant and Bhaskar with a response submission deadline of December 10, 2025.
15. On December 10, 2025, Bhaskar requested an extension to the evidence submission deadline. Bhaskar was provided with an extended submission deadline of December 17,
2025.
16. On December 16, 2025, Bhaskar requested another extension to the evidence submission deadline. Bhaskar was provided with an extended submission deadline of December 22,
2025.
17. On December 23, 2025, Bhaskar’s additional evidence (an 8-page PDF) was sent to the Landlord and the Tenant. The parties were notified that no further submissions would be accepted after this date.
18. On April 22, 2026, the Rental Office issued Order LD26-131, which ordered that the Landlord and Bhaskar must pay the Tenant $5,364.78 by June 22, 2026.
19. The Landlord appealed Order LD26-131 on May 11, 2026.
20. The Commission heard the appeal on June 3, 2026, by way of telephone conference. The Landlord was represented by it’s legal counsel, Haiyan Zhang with Guiling (Tami) Ren, the sole director of UOPLUS Inc., and Ming Zhang (the Property Manager) as witnesses.
The Tenant, Jashandeep Kaur, was self represented. Bhaskar did not attend the telephone hearing.
21. The applicable legislation is the Residential Tenancy Act, cap. R-13.11 (the “Act”).
C. DISPOSITION
22. The Appeal is dismissed. Order LD26-131 is confirmed. The Landlord and Bhaskar remain jointly and severally liable to pay the Tenant a return of rent together with double the security deposit and applicable interest.
D. ISSUES
23. The issues for the Commission to consider on this appeal are:
(i) Did Bhaskar qualify as a "landlord" within the meaning of s. 1(h) of the Act?
(ii) If so, is the tenancy agreement enforceable against the Landlord by virtue of Bhaskar's actual or apparent authority?

4 (iii) Has the Tenant established an entitlement to compensation under the Act, and if so, against whom?
E. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Landlord’s Evidence & Submissions
24. The Landlord’s Property Manager stated that since 2023 she has been approached by property managers seeking to rent multiple units at a “bulk price”.
25. The Landlord’s Property Manager first met Bhaskar in March 2023. In March 2025, Bhaskar contacted the Property Manager and asked if she had any vacant properties available for rent as he wanted to rent multiple units at a bulk price for subletting to many potential clients.
26. The evidence before the Commission includes one tenancy agreement between UOPLUS Inc. and Bhaskar in respect of Unit 8, 21 Ashburn Crescent.
27. Between March 2025 and May 2025, Bhaskar rented four properties from the Landlord’s Property Manager, none of which included the Rental Unit. There was no agreement made to allow Bhaskar to rent the Rental Unit.
28. The Landlord’s Representative submitted text messages sent by Bhaskar in May 2025, which stated:
Are there any other apartments? I do have many clients at this time, but the issue is that we need good apartments… Also, keep me posted if more apartments come up.
29. The Landlord’s Property Manager’s evidence is that on June 25, 2025 she was
approached by the Tenant asking her if she could view the Rental Unit. She advised the Tenant that the Rental Unit had already been rented to someone else. The Tenant told the Landlord’s Property Manager that she had paid a security deposit to Bhaskar for the Rental Unit. The Landlord’s Property Manager advised the Tenant that she had not received any of her funds from Bhaskar.
Tenant’s Evidence & Submissions
30. The Tenant is seeking a return of $1,775.00 in rent and her security deposit of $1,775.00.
31. The Tenant met Bhaskar through a mutual acquaintance who lived in the same building as the Rental Unit. Bhaskar told the Tenant he worked with a rental company and with the Landlord’s Property Manager. Bhaskar told the Tenant the Rental Unit was available to rent but not for a showing, but showed the Tenant another unit on the basis that the units were very similar.
32. The Tenant paid a security deposit and first month’s rent for July 2025 to Bhaskar.

5
33. When the Tenant went to view the Rental Unit, the Landlord’s Property Manager was showing the Rental Unit to others; Bhaskar was not present. The Tenant was advised that the Rental Unit had been rented to someone else and she should get her money back from Bhaskar.
34. Bhaskar advised the Tenant that he had sent the money to the Landlord’s Property Manager and that her money would be refunded.
35. The Tenant testified that the security deposit and rent have not been returned to her, although she has requested same several times.
Bhaskar’s Evidence & Submissions
36. Bhaskar did not attend the hearing nor present evidence. At the hearing before the Rental Office, Bhaskar stated that he forwarded the money for the security deposit and rent to the Landlord’s Property Manager in cash or by e-transfer.
F. ANALYSIS
37. The material facts are largely uncontested. The Tenant paid a security deposit of $1,775.00 and rent for July 2025 in the same amount. She was subsequently told by the Landlord’s Property Manager that the Rental Unit had been rented to someone else and she never moved into the Rental Unit.
38. The Landlord and Property Manager deny that Bhaskar was authorized to act as the Landlord or an agent. However, the Commission must also consider whether Bhaskar possessed apparent authority, arising from the surrounding circumstances, such that Bhaskar was acting “on behalf of” the Landlord under the Act.
39. The starting point is the definition of “landlord” under subsection 1(h) of the Act, which is intentionally broad and includes not only the owner, but also any person who, on behalf of the owner, permits occupation or exercises landlord functions.
40. The Act defines “landlord” as follows:
1(h) “landlord”, in relation to a rental unit, includes (i) the owner of the rental unit, the owner’s agent or another person who, on behalf of the owner, (A) permits occupation of the rental unit under a tenancy agreement, or (B) exercises powers and performs duties under this Act or a tenancy agreement, (ii) the heirs, assigns, personal representatives and successors in title to the owner, (iii) a person, other than a tenant occupying the rental unit, who (A) is entitled to possession of the rental unit, and (B) exercises any of the rights of a landlord under a tenancy agreement or this Act in relation to the rental unit, and (iv) a former landlord, as the context requires;

6
41. For the reasons that will follow, in this case the Commission is satisfied that Bhaskar meets the definition of “landlord” at clause 1(h)(i). In particular, the evidence before the Commission demonstrates that Bhaskar had a working relationship with the Property Manager, entered into the Tenancy Agreement with the Tenant, and accepted a security deposit from him.
42. In coming to this conclusion, and as also stated in Order LR26-18, the Commission has reviewed a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court).
Though the Commission is not bound by decisions from superior courts in other provinces, the Commission finds the analysis in this decision to be relevant and compelling and adopts the findings below.
43. In Lyle-Mayes v. Lazar et al., 2026 ONSC 1659, the Ontario Divisional Court considered an appeal of a decision of the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board. In that case, the appellant had met with a property manager and negotiated the terms of a verbal lease agreement. The landlord then sought vacant possession of the unit. The Board found there was no tenancy agreement between the tenant and the property manager, because they were not satisfied the property manager had authority to enter into a tenancy agreement that would bind the landlord. On appeal, the Divisional Court found it to be an error of law that the Board did not consider whether the property manager was a “landlord” under the definition in Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act.
44. It is worth noting here that the definition of landlord in Ontario’s legislation is similar to, if not slightly less broad, than the definition of “landlord” in the Act.
45. The Ontario Divisional Court made the following findings in Lyle-Mayes v. Lazar et al.:
34. The Act's definition of "landlord" is intentionally broad to ensure that
it is consistent with the legislation's tenant protection purpose and reflects both the practical complexities and power imbalances in landlord and tenant relationships, including in their formation. The creation of legal relationships and obligations tha[t] can be potentially enforced against multiple actors assists to ensure that legal remedies are more easily accessible for Tenant and prospective Tenant.
35. In Slapsys [2010 ONCA 676], the Court of Appeal recognized that
the definition of "landlord" allows for there to be more than one "landlord" for a single rental unit (at para. 7). […].
36. [2014 ONCA 391] … addressed some of the reasons that an
expansive definition of "landlord" has long been seen as important for the protection of Tenant. He observed that Tenant sometimes deal only with property managers, and do not know the identity of the owners, which would otherwise bar them from initiating applications to enforce their rights if property managers did not fall within the definition of "landlord". […] 37 […] I find that the correct test in deciding whether the Appellant's communications with Mr. Somo created a tenancy agreement is to determine whether in all the circumstances Mr. Somo is a "landlord" as

7 defined by the Act. I further find that in not answering this question, the Member committed an error of law that resulted in a substantial wrong that warrants court intervention.[…] 39 When addressing the issue of ostensible authority, however, one must not limit the analysis to the words of the principal; the analysis also includes a consideration of their conduct. The Court of Appeal provides this guidance in Monachino v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2000 CanLII 5686 at para. 35, where it states:
Where a person, by words or conduct, represents or permits it to be represented that another person has authority to act on his behalf, he is bound by the acts of the other person with respect to anyone dealing with him as an agent on the faith of any such representation, to the same extent as if such other person had the authority that the was represented to have, even though he had no such authority.
[emphasis added]
46. The Commission finds this rationale compelling. In all of the circumstances of this case, the evidence supports a finding that Bhaskar was acting as a “landlord” as defined in the Act and that it was reasonable for the Tenant to believe that Bhaskar was acting with authority on behalf of the Landlord and/or the Property Manager.
47. On a review of the evidence as a whole, the Commission cannot accept the Property Manager’s evidence that that Bhaskar was just subletting the Rental Unit and acted entirely independently in his dealings with the Tenant in this case. The evidence establishes an ongoing relationship between Bhaskar and the Landlord’s Property Manager. Bhaskar had previously rented at least one rental unit from the Landlord, communicated regularly with the Property Manager regarding available units, sought additional inventory for prospective tenants, and was known to the Landlord’s Property Manager as someone arranging units for clients. Viewed objectively, these circumstances lead to a reasonable conclusion that Bhaskar possessed authority to negotiate the tenancy agreement.
48. The Landlord’s Legal Counsel argued that the evidence did not demonstrate any authority from the Landlord to Bhaskar. She argued that if there is any “agency” to be found, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that authority must come from the principal (in this case, the Landlord): Canadian Laboratory Supplies v. Engelhard Industries, [1979] 2 SCR
787. Legal Counsel argued that there is no evidence in this case that the Landlord allowed Bhaskar to act on her behalf. For example, she said there was no agreement between the Landlord and Bhaskar and that the terms of the Property Manager’s contract did not allow her to authorize agreements on behalf of the Landlord.
49. Upon considering this submission, the Commission makes two points. First, the Commission is mandated to interpret and apply the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act as between landlords and tenants. The Supreme Court of Canada decision referred to by the Landlord’s Legal Counsel was made in the context commercial law. That is not the context the Commission is faced with here.

8
50. Second, as described above by the Ontario court, the Commission accepts that the scheme of the Act intends for the definition of landlord to be broad and that: “The creation of legal relationships and obligations that can be potentially enforced against multiple actors assists to ensure that legal remedies are more easily accessible for tenants and prospective tenants.”
51. In any event, the Commission is satisfied that the evidence establishes that Bhaskar had an ongoing and known relationship with the Landlord and its Property Manager. He had rented at least one unit from the Landlord; engaged in discussions regarding leasing other units in bulk for subletting purposes; and interacted with the Property Manager in relation to prospective tenants. Given the circumstances in this case, the Landlord and Property Manager are responsible for having some level of knowledge regarding Bhaskar’s activities and representations and ought to have exercised greater diligence regarding same.
52. With regard to the Property Manager’s assertions that Bhaskar engaged in fraudulent activity, the Commission does not accept this characterization as determinative of the
issue. As the Commission recently commented in Order LR26-18, any dispute between the Landlord and Bhaskar regarding the scope of his authority, or the failure to remit funds to the Property Manager or Landlord, is a matter to be resolved between the Landlord and Bhaskar that does not affect the Tenant’s entitlement to protection under the Residential Tenancy Act. The same can be said for any dispute as to the authority of the Property Manager to enter into dealings with Bhaskar. Such issues fall outside the jurisdiction of the Rental Office and the Commission. Further, these disputes are not the burden of the Tenant to bear in the circumstances.
53. In this case, the evidence supports a finding that Bhaskar had an ongoing relationship with the Property Manager about various rental units, including this one.
54. The Commission finds that the Landlord cannot avoid liability by characterizing Bhaskar’s actions as wholly independent or fraudulent. The Landlord’s Counsel made public policy arguments that the finding of the Rental Office, if upheld, could impose liability on innocent landlords for the fraudulent acts of unauthorized individuals. The Commission cannot agree that the circumstances in the present case are as suggested by Landlord’s Counsel.
In this case, the Property Manager does not deny having an established relationship with Bhaskar in respect of multiple rental units.
55. The Commission's conclusion is, therefore, grounded in the particular facts of this appeal.
56. The Commission also notes that despite the Property Manager’s assertions that bulk subletting of multiple units by another tenant is a common practice on PEI, the Commission does not accept that it is. However, even if such practices occur, the Commission finds that they cannot insulate a landlord from all liability in every case without regard for the surrounding circumstances.
57. In conclusion, the Commission finds that Bhaskar was acting as a “landlord” under the Act on behalf of the Landlord and entered into a tenancy agreement with the Tenant such that the Act applies and the Landlord is liable.
58. With respect to the security deposit, section 40 of the Act imposes a clear obligation on a landlord to either return the deposit within the prescribed timeframe or apply to retain it.

9 Having found that a tenancy agreement existed for the purposes of the Act, and that the security deposit was never returned to the Tenant, the Tenant is entitled to compensation in accordance with section 40 of the Act, including double the amount of the security deposit together with applicable interest.
59. The Commission further agrees with the Rental Office that the Tenant is entitled to reimbursement of the prepaid rent.
60. The Commission confirms the decision of the Rental Office in finding that the Tenant has established claims for a return of rent of $1,775.00 and for double the security deposit, including interest, payable by the Landlord and Bhaskar by the timeline below, with calculations as follows:
Return of Rent $1,775.00 Security deposit: $1,775.00 Interest (June 11/2025 to date of Order): $ 51.01 Double award: $1,775.00 Total: $5,376.01
61. This conclusion is also consistent with the Commission's earlier decisions in Orders LR25-46, LR26-18 and LR26-21.
62. Having found that both Bhaskar and the Landlord meet the definition of “landlord” under the Act, in the circumstances, the Commission is satisfied that the obligations under section 40 of the Act apply to both. The Commission concludes that the Landlord and Bhaskar are jointly and severally liable to the Tenant for double the security deposit.
63. The Commission finds it important to note that, similar to the comment of the Ontario Divisional Court cited above, this interpretation aligns with one or more of the purposes of the Act, that being to ameliorate power imbalances and ensure that Tenant is not prejudiced by internal arrangements between landlords and their representatives that the Tenant could know nothing about.
G. CONCLUSION
64. The appeal is dismissed and Order LD26-131 is confirmed.

10
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Bhaskar and the Landlord shall pay the Tenant $5,376.01 by July 29, 2026.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 15th day of July, 2026.
BY THE COMMISSION:
[sgd. Gordon MacFarlane] Gordon MacFarlane [sgd. Pamela J. Williams, K.C.] Pamela J. Williams, K.C.
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.