Digest: McPherson v Pham, 2018 SKQB 334

• Date: November 30, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 334

Docket Number: QB18313 , QBG 3190/18 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-11-30

Judges:

• Kalmakoff

Subjects:

• Landlord and Tenant � Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

Digest: The appellant appealed the decision of a hearing officer made under the provisions of The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. The appellant and the respondent signed a one-year fixed term tenancy agreement that would end in September 2018. The respondent was often late paying his rent and in April, he had indicated to the appellant that he would vacate the premises on June 1. However, at that time, the parties were discussing when he would pay his June rent. On June 4, the appellant went to the rental unit when the respondent was not present. She found his belongings and his dog there. She decided that the respondent had abandoned the premises and changed the locks. Because of the dog, the appellant had the suite cleaned and replaced the carpet. She filed a claim for loss of June�s rent and the cleaning and carpet replacement costs and continued to hold the respondent�s security deposit of $1,500. At the hearing, the appellant testified and filed various documents, such as the respondent�s notice that he was leaving, in support of her claim. The respondent testified that he had not abandoned the suite and had been away from it at the time of the appellant�s visit because he was recovering from surgery. The officer dismissed the appellant�s claim and awarded judgment in favour of the respondent in the amount of $750, being one-half of the security deposit. The officer found that she did not believe that the appellant thought that the respondent had abandoned the rental unit and that she had locked him out, thereby preventing him from having quiet possession for the month of June. The appellant�s grounds of appeal were that the officer had made findings of fact that were errors of law in failing to consider or misapprehending relevant evidence. She argued that the officer had not noted in her decision that the appellant had submitted the respondent�s notice to terminate and the evidence was relevant to the appellant�s belief that the respondent had vacated the unit.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the respondent�s notice was clearly part of the evidence before the officer and although she did not mention it specifically, she stated in her decision that she had reviewed the documents filed by...