Beaverbone et al. v. Sacco, (2009) 480 A.R. 198 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 15, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 480 A.R. 198 (QB);2009 ABQB 529

Beaverbone v. Sacco (2009), 480 A.R. 198 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. OC.079

Marvin Beaverbone and Carrie Houle (appellants/tenants) v. Dominic Sacco and Aurora Sacco (respondents/landlord)

(0903-09811; 2009 ABQB 529)

Indexed As: Beaverbone et al. v. Sacco

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

October 6, 2009.

Summary:

Tenants appealed the decision of a Tenancy Dispute Officer to evict them from a rented house. The tenants argued that the Officer erred in finding a substantial breach of the tenancy agreement under s. 21 of the Residential Tenancies Act and in failing to terminate the hearing under s. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation for want of jurisdiction when a human rights issue and a Charter issue arose. The human rights issue was whether the landlord had accommodated the male tenant, who had a mental disability (post traumatic stress disorder). Also at issue was whether the police involvement in initiating the eviction triggered any Charter issues.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Officer had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, as s. 17(1)(a)(i) precluded jurisdiction where a human rights issue or a Charter issue arose. Accordingly, the landlords had an option to withdraw the eviction application or have the matter heard in the Provincial Court or the Court of Queen's Bench.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7006.1

Regulation - General principles - Jurisdiction - Bars - Human rights or Charter issues - Tenants rented a home - The aboriginal male tenant had a mental disability (post traumatic stress disorder), which caused him to be angry, hostile, suicidal, anxious, etc. - There was continuous conflict with racist neighbours and frequent police involvement - The male tenant was never charged with an offence - The police took the initiative to have the tenants evicted for breaching their tenancy agreement - There was no reference to statutory authority for their conduct - The eviction application was heard by a Tenancy Dispute Officer under the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation - Under s. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation, the matter could not be heard by the Dispute Resolution Service if, inter alia, a human rights issue or a Charter issue arose - The Officer held that he had jurisdiction (no human rights or Charter issues) and that the tenants breached the tenancy agreement - He issued an eviction notice - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the tenants' appeal on the ground that the Officer had no jurisdiction to hear the matter - The officer erred in law in finding no human rights or Charter issues - There was a human rights issue as to whether the landlord had accommodated the male tenant's mental disability - Given the police involvement in this civil matter, there was also an issue as to whether their conduct triggered Charter issues - Where s. 17(1)(a)(i) precluded the Officer from hearing the matter, the landlord had a choice to withdraw the application or have it proceed in either the Provincial Court or the Court of Queen's Bench - The matter was remitted to permit the Dispute Resolution Service to advise the landlord of that choice - It would not be appropriate for the court to determine whether the tenants had substantially breached the tenancy agreement.

Cases Noticed:

409205 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. (2002), 319 A.R. 352; 2001 CarswellAlta 1884 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 946 v. J.V.M., [2008] O.J. No. 5412 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 7].

Eagleson Co-Operative Homes Inc., Re (2006), 218 O.A.C. 321 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Walmer Developments v. Wolch (2003), 176 O.A.C. 298; 67 O.R.(3d) 246 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 7].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 7].

Khedr-Selim v. Mah et al., [2006] L.E.R.B. No. 019, refd to. [para. 7].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 7].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd. (1984), 55 N.R. 194 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Schuldt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592; 63 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 8].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen (1991), 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14, sect. 5 [para. 33].

Residential Tenancies Act, S.A. 2004, c. R-17.1, sect. 1(1)(p)(i) [para. 28]; sect. 21 [para. 29]; sect. 29 [para. 27].

Residential Tenancies Act Regulations (Alta.), Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Reg. 98/2006, sect. 17 [para. 30].

Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation - see Residential Tenancies Act Regulations (Alta.).

Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, S.A. 2007, c. S-0.5, sect. 1(e) [para. 31]; sect. 7(1) [para. 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007), generally [para. 7].

Counsel:

Sarah D. Eadie, Edmonton Community Legal Centre, for the appellants/tenants;

R. Max Gold (R. Max Gold Professional Corp.), for the respondents/landlords.

This appeal was heard on September 15, 2009, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on October 6, 2009.