Digest: P.R. Investments Inc. v Amos, 2018 SKQB 127

DateApril 27, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 127

Docket Number: QB17505 , QBG 578/18 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-04-27


  • Leurer


Digest: The appellant landlord appealed the decision of a hearing officer appointed under The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 dismissing the landlord�s claim for damages against its tenants, the respondents. The appellant had earlier appealed from a previous dismissal of its claim by the hearing officer and the appeal judge had referred the claim back for reconsideration of it by the officer (see: 2017 SKQB 342). The officer reconsidered the matter and again dismissed the landlord�s claim. The facts underlying the two appeals were that the appellant had served notice on the respondents that it was immediately terminating the tenancy pursuant to s. 58(1)(e) of the Act because they had had a domestic dispute that led to a physical assault on the landlord�s property manager and damage to the residential premises. The tenants complied coincidentally with the landlord�s demand for immediate possession only after it had obtained an order of possession pursuant to s. 68 and s. 70 of the Act as they vacated the premises on February 27 and the order was granted on February 28. The landlord then applied pursuant to s. 32 and s. 70 to claim the tenants� security deposit and damages because of the condition in which they had left the premises and for a sum for rent loss pursuant to s. 8 of the Act. The hearing officer allowed the claim for cleaning and repairs but rejected the claim for loss of rent, based upon the decisions in Danis and Weeseekase. The officer�s decision was overturned by the appeal judge because Danis was decided prior to amendments that introduced the current version of s. 8 and because she misapplied Weeseekase. He referred the matter back to hearing officer to determine whether the landlord�s loss of March rent was the result of the tenants� apparent non-compliance with the Act, the regulations or the tenancy agreement. The hearing officer found that the situation did not warrant an award of damages for lost income because the landlord had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the claim. The landlord�s grounds for appeal of the second decision was that the hearing officer had erred in law: 1) by breaching...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT