← Back to orders

LR03-04

IRAC · February 21, 2003 · denied · Auto-indexed

Open saved PDFOriginal source ↗
Decision date
February 21, 2003
Panel / officer
Weston Rose
Outcome
denied
RTA sections
25, 11(2), 26(2)

Quick summary

Auto-indexed

Appeal · other. Outcome: denied.

Linked prior order: LD03-019

Order text

Order LR03-04 - Rental Appeal - A-002-03 Re: P. Allen v. Property Care and Rental (Order LD03-019) Docket A-002-03 Order LR03-04 IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act , by Patrick Allen [Lessee] against Order LD03-019 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated January 24, 2003. BEFORE THE COMMISSION on Friday, the 21st day of February, 2003. Weston Rose, Panel Chair Maurice Rodgerson, Vice-Chair Anne Petley, Commissioner Order Participants 1. Appellant: Patrick Allen Lessee (not present at the hearing) 2. Respondent: Property Care & Rental Inc. Represented by Ron Switzer (Lessor) Witness: Natasha Johnston Reasons for Order 1. Introduction The Lessee appealed Order LD03-019 of the Office of the Director of Residential Rental Property, dated January 24, 2003, regarding premises at 28 Hillsboro Street, Apartment #1, Charlottetown, P.E.I. The appeal was received by the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission on February 3, 2003. The appeal was heard on February 17, 2003. The Lessor was represented at the hearing by Ron Switzer and Natasha Johnston appeared as witness. The Lessee did not attend the hearing. 2. Background The Lessee rented an apartment from the Lessor at 28 Hillsboro Street in Charlottetown. The Lessee, together with another person, signed a one year rental agreement with the Lessor for the period August 4, 2001 to July 31 2002 (Exhibit E-6). The rental payments were $515.00 per month. The Lessee moved out of the apartment in early November without giving notice to the Lessor. Mr. Allen indicated in a letter dated November 25, 2002, addressed to Ms. Whalen (Exhibit E-4) that there were many things wrong with the apartment; such as, a leak in the ceiling, the carpets weren't sanitized and a security lock was broken. The Lessee said this was the reason he moved out. Mr. Switzer testified at the hearing that he dealt with any issues Mr. Allen had while he was a tenant and that he disputes the allegations made in Mr. Allen's letter. Mr. Switzer stated he tried to rent the apartment when Mr. Allen moved out but was not successful in doing so until February 1, 2002. The Commission has on file copies of newspaper ads (Exhibit E-7) showing the apartment was advertised from November 13, 2001 to January 18, 2002. 3. Decision Based on the information and evidence before the Commission the appeal is denied. In making its decision the Commission considered the documents from the office of the Director of Residential Rental Property (Exhibits E-1 to E-12) and the testimony of Mr. Switzer. It is clear from the evidence presented to the Director and at the appeal hearing that the Lessee did not give proper notice. Section 11.(2) of the Rental of Residential Property Act states: 2. Where premises are let under a fixed term rental agreement, (a) a notice of termination shall be served by the lessee not less than sixty days before the expiry of the term; and (b) service pursuant to clause (a), terminates the rental agreement as of the last day of the term. In testimony at the original hearing Mr. Allen did not dispute the claim of rent owing, however he claimed he should not have to pay any rent due to the condition of the unit. At the appeal hearing the Lessor strenuously disputed the claims of the Lessee stating the unit was in good condition and any requests made by the Lessee were promptly addressed. In his notice of appeal to the Commission (Exhibit E-10) the Lessee suggested the circumstances of the rental property should void the rental agreement. The Commission notes that the Act provides a specific process for the Lessee to follow in having statutory conditions addressed by the Lessor. There is no evidence any such steps were taken, in fact the condition of the unit appears to have been raised after the Lessees vacated the unit. If, as the Lessee claims, problems existed that were not addressed, the Lessee could have sought an order that they be addressed. He did not. The Lessee did, however, sign a fixed term rental agreement, and has not provided any evidence that would diminish or reduce that obligation. Therefore the Order of the Director of Residential Rental Property is confirmed. Order WHEREAS Patrick Allen appealed Order LD03-019 of the Director of Residential Rental Property on February, 3, 2003; AND WHEREAS the Commission heard the appeal in Charlottetown on February 17, 2003; NOW THEREFORE , for the reasons given in the annexed Reasons for Order; IT IS ORDERED THAT The appeal is denied ; Payment is due to the Lessor in the amount of $770.00; and Payment to the Lessor is due on or before March 7, 2003. DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 21st day of February, 2003. BY THE COMMISSION: Weston Rose, Panel Chair Maurice Rodgerson, Vice-Chair Anne Petley , Commissioner NOTICE Sections 26.(2), 26.(3), 26.(4) and 26.(5) of the Rental of Residential Property Act provide as follows: 26.(2) A lessor or lessee may, within fifteen days of the decision of the Commission, appeal to the court on a question of law only. (3) The rules of court governing appeals apply to an appeal under subsection (2). (4) Where the Commission has confirmed, reversed or varied an order of the Director and no appeal has been taken within the time specified in subsection (2), the lessor or lessee may file the order in the court. (5) Where an order is filed pursuant to subsection (4), it may be enforced as if it were an order of the court.

Similar cases

Orders that share issues or RTA sections. Useful when comparing how similar facts were decided.

  • LD26-296granted · rto

    Tenant application · other. Outcome: granted. The Landlord must pay the Tenant $1,437.88 by the timeline below.

  • LD26-294granted · rto

    Application · other. Outcome: granted. I find that the Parking Spot is already an included service or facility in the Tenant’s rent. The Landlords must not charge the Tenant a separate fee regarding t…

  • LR26-37granted · irac

    Landlord appeal · other. Outcome: granted. The Appeal is denied and the Rental Office decision LD26-125 is confirmed. The Landlords and Bhaskar are liable to pay the Tenant a return of rent and double…

  • LR26-36dismissed · irac

    Appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. The Commission agrees with the finding of Order LD26-130 that the parties did not have a landlord-tenant relationship, or a tenancy agreeme…

  • LR26-35dismissed · irac

    Tenant appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed. The Appeal is denied and the Rental Office’s Order LD26-161 is upheld. The Tenant shall return the Subtenant’s security deposit in the amount of $500.00, plu…

  • LD26-238granted · rto

    Tenant application · other. Outcome: granted. The Landlord must pay the Tenant $2,256.15. This amount includes the original security deposit ($1,100.00), the $56.15 in accrued interest on the original…

  • LR26-34dismissed · irac

    Landlord appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed. The Appeal is dismissed. Order LD26-118 is confirmed. The Landlord and Bhaskar remain jointly and severally liable to pay the Tenants a return of rent toge…

  • LR26-33dismissed · irac

    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 toget…