Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 3 of 43

B.A. (Alta.), LL.B. (Dal.), LL.M. (Col.).
Professor Emerita.
Please click here for more information.

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Reports Commented On: RTDRS Annual Report, 1^st edition (March 2020 – April 2021) and RTDRS Annual Report, 2^nd edition (March 2021 – April 2022)

PDF Version: Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service has a Complaint Process

Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) has a complaint process. It is almost a secret, and landlords and tenants can easily be unaware of its existence. The Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) does not mention an RTDRS complaint process. Neither does the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (Regulation). An RTDRS complaint process is not referred to in the RTDRS Rules of Practice and Procedure (April 2023). Nor is it commented upon in the Code of Conduct for Tenancy Dispute Officers, the persons who decide landlord-tenant disputes at the RTDRS. It is not mentioned in the RTA handbook for landlords and tenants: Residential Tenancies Act and regulations [2023], nor in the 2018 version of that handbook. I could not find any mention of the complaint process on the Government of Alberta’s RTDRS website. The only public mention of an RTDRS complaint process is in the two annual reports that have been made public – the RTDRS Annual Report, 1^st edition (March 2020-April 2021) and the RTDRS Annual Report, 2^nd edition (March 2021-April 2022).

Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 24, 2023

In Property, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Afolabi v Wexcel Realty Management Ltd, 2023 ABKB 68 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

I have written before about the difficulties tenants face when trying to exercise their right to appeal orders granted by the Tenancy Dispute Officers (TDOs) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS); see here and here. Those posts only briefly mention the timeline for filing an appeal, which is 30 days from the filing of the RTDRS Order in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta according to section 23(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (Regulation). I have also written before about some other fundamental deficiencies in that Regulation (here and here), as has my colleague, Shaun Fluker (here). This decision by Justice Michael A. Marion provides an opportunity to discuss the trap for unwary tenants caused by the appeal timeline provisions in the Regulation and by related provisions in the RTDRS Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).

Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 14, 2022

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Legislation Commented On: Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5

PDF Version: Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

The Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) has been in the news lately as a result of Premier Danielle Smith’s announcement – consistent with her platform for leadership of the United Conservative Party and its promise of no more lockdowns – that she would seek an amendment to the AHRA to add vaccination status as a ground protected from discrimination (here, here and here). In her mandate letter to Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro, released on November 10, 2022, Smith included as her second priority – second only to a Sovereignty Act – the instruction to “take any necessary legislative or regulatory steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of COVID-19 vaccination and/or booster status.”

Who is Responsible for Damage to Rental Premises Caused by Mouse Infestations – and Why?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 19, 2022

In Property

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Considered: Hometime Property Services Ltd v Girumnesh, 2022 ABPC 172 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Who is Responsible for Damage to Rental Premises Caused by Mouse Infestations – and Why?

The plaintiff, a corporate landlord, sued the defendant, their former residential tenant, for almost $8,000 in damages plus costs, claiming the rental premises were infested with mice when the tenant vacated. The damages were for exterminating the mice and restoring the premises to their pre-infestation condition. The tenant, who was served personally with the landlord’s civil claim, did not file a dispute note and was noted in default. Because they were noted in default and the claim was heard in Provincial Court, the tenant was deemed to have admitted the facts that were alleged in the landlord’s civil claim. Nevertheless, the landlord lost; their claim was dismissed in its entirety. Why that happened is worth taking note of.

The Importance of Move-In Inspection Reports to the Return of Security Deposits in Residential Tenancies

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 8, 2022

In Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Safri v Maclean, 2022 ABPC 113 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Importance of Move-In Inspection Reports to the Return of Security Deposits in Residential Tenancies

The judgment of Judge Jasmine Sihra of the Northern Region Provincial Court is a good reminder to both landlords and tenants that a move-in inspection report is required by section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA). Not only is it mandatory, but a landlord cannot deduct from a tenant’s security deposit without a move-in inspection report (section 46(5) RTA). That does not mean a landlord cannot sue a tenant for damage to the rental premises that goes beyond normal wear and tear. They can. But Judge Sihra’s decision in Safri v Maclean illustrates that it is much harder for a landlord to win if they do not have a move-in inspection report.