Category: Landlord/Tenant Page 2 of 8

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: AG obo ZG v FirstService Residential Alberta Ltd, 2022 AHRC 38 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Residential Tenancies, Mental Disabilities, and Evictions

This case concerns a challenge to an eviction from a rented condominium – a challenge claiming the eviction discriminated against a tenant’s child on the ground of mental disability. There is something wrong with this decision to confirm the Director’s dismissal of the tenant’s complaint. The conclusion that there was no reasonable basis in the evidence to proceed to a hearing does not follow from the facts that are recounted. This may simply be because all the relevant facts are not set out in the decision. But based on the facts that are summarized, the most plausible –perhaps the only possible – inference is that the tenancy was terminated because the tenant’s son had a mental disability that the landlord, building manager, and other residents of the condominium building thought meant the son would endanger them or their property in the future, and no accommodation was possible.

The Chilling Effect of Costs on Appeals from Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Orders

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On March 3, 2022

In Costs, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Chilling Effect of Costs on Appeals from Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Orders

Case Commented On: Chisholm v Boardwalk General Partnership, 2021 ABQB 991 (CanLII)

This brief decision by Justice John T Henderson concerns the costs of appealing a decision of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Following an April 2021 hearing, the RTDRS’ Tenancy Dispute Officer ordered the tenant, Ms. Chisholm, to pay her landlord, Boardwalk, the sum of $2,606.78 for arrears in rent, utilities, and parking, plus $75 in costs. The tenant appealed, but Justice Henderson dismissed her appeal in November 2021. Boardwalk then asked Justice Henderson to award them $4,556.25 in costs for that appeal. Not only did they want costs of $4,556.25 for winning an appeal from a judgment for $2,606.78, they had threatened to ask for costs of $7,087.50 (at para 5g). And they wanted these costs from a tenant whose source of income was Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severally Handicapped (AISH), i.e., a tenant who by definition has a permanent and untreatable medical condition that substantially limits their ability to earn a living (AISH Overview – Eligibility). For people living in privately-owned housing like this tenant, the maximum AISH monthly allowance has been $1,685 for the past two years (AISH Policy Manual). Her rent at Boardwalk was $1,079 per month (para 5b), leaving $606 per month for food, clothing, transportation, and all other needs.

Setting Aside and Varying Orders of the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service for Procedural Unfairness

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 2, 2021

In Landlord/Tenant, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Setting Aside and Varying Orders of the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service for Procedural Unfairness

Cases Commented On: 21006414 (Re), 2021 ABRTDRS 19 (CanLII), 20003149 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 18 (CanLII), 20003525 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 21 (CanLII), and Hammond v Hammond, 2019 ABQB 522 (CanLII)

This post looks at how difficult it is to have an order of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) set aside or varied. The power of a Tenancy Dispute Officer (TDO) to set aside or vary their own order was added in 2017 to the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (RTDRS Regulation). Unfortunately, there has been little reported consideration of how the new section 19.1 works. There are three reported Reasons for the Decision from the RTDRS, all of which were written by TDO J. Young. The most recently added Reasons for Decision cited two Court of Queen’s Bench cases that provide some principles that can be used to interpret section 19.1. It is therefore an opportune time to look at how easy (or difficult) it is for a landlord or tenant to persuade a TDO to set aside or vary the TDO’s own order.

Tenant’s Insurance, Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020 and Evictions of Residential Tenants

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 25, 2020

In COVID-19, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Tenant’s Insurance, Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020 and Evictions of Residential Tenants

Case Commented On: 20005321 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 20 (CanLII)

This decision by a Tenancy Dispute Officer (TDO), J. Lambert, of Alberta’s Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is notable for three reasons. The first – and probably the most helpful to the widest range of landlords and tenants – is the discussion about whether or not a tenant’s failure to produce evidence of tenant’s insurance as required by their residential tenancy agreement is a “substantial breach” that entitles the landlord to evict the tenant. It seems that many residential tenancy agreements require tenants to obtain insurance for their own property – contents insurance – and many tenants do not bother to do so. The second reason is its consideration of Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020, which was intended to offer some help to tenants who could not pay their rent due to COVID-19. That Ministerial Order lapsed on August 14, 2020, so whatever impact it had should be apparent by now. But because of structural problems such as the small percentage of RTDRS decisions made public and the closure of courts to eviction cases at the beginning of the pandemic, we will probably never know whether or what kind of difference that Ministerial Order made. We do have a hint of its impact in the decision in 20005321 (Re), but it is only a hint. The third reason this decision is notable is that it is one of only 24 RTDRS decisions made public so far in 2020. The publication of some RTDRS decisions was a recent and deliberate commitment to “improved access to justice by publishing written RTDRS decisions through the CanLII database”, according to the Service Alberta Annual Report 2019/2020 (at 19). This decision contributes toward that goal, but more is needed.

Can an Alberta Landlord’s Duty to Make Reasonable Efforts to Negotiate a Meaningful Payment Plan with Residential Tenants before Evicting Tenants be Enforced?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On May 25, 2020

In COVID-19, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Can an Alberta Landlord’s Duty to Make Reasonable Efforts to Negotiate a Meaningful Payment Plan with Residential Tenants before Evicting Tenants be Enforced?

Legislation Commented On: Ministerial Order No. SA: 005/2020 [Service Alberta]

Since May 1, 2020, a landlord in Alberta has been able to evict a residential tenant for non-payment of rent and utilities even if the failure to pay is due to circumstances beyond the tenant’s control caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At least one politically prominent landlord has already starting eviction proceedings (see here and here). In place of the suspension of evictions that expired April 30, the government introduced a duty on landlords to make reasonable efforts to enter into meaningful payment plans with their tenants. According to the government description of this new duty (in Rent Payment Plans COVID-19), landlords will have to prove they made these efforts before landlords can issue a 14-day notice or apply to the courts or Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) to terminate a tenancy for non-payment of rent. Landlords may eventually have to prove that they made those efforts if tenants sue them or refuse to leave the rental premises, but there is a gap in the new law that makes it unnecessarily difficult for tenants – or anyone else – to enforce a landlord’s new duty. The Minister for Service Alberta needs to amend section 29 of the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) and section 32 of the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act, RSA 2000, c M-20 (MHSTA) to allow tenants who have failed to pay rent to object to a 14-day notice terminating a tenancy on the basis that the landlord has not complied with its new duty.