GSL Developments Ltd. v. Brown et al., (2015) 470 Sask.R. 166 (QB)

Judge:Scherman, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
Case Date:February 18, 2015
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:(2015), 470 Sask.R. 166 (QB);2015 SKQB 54
 
FREE EXCERPT

GSL Dev. v. Brown (2015), 470 Sask.R. 166 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.030

GSL Developments Ltd. (appellant) v. Holly Brown (respondent) and The Office of the Residential Tenancies (respondent)

(2015 QBG No. 106; 2015 SKQB 54)

Indexed As: GSL Developments Ltd. v. Brown et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Scherman, J.

February 18, 2015.

Summary:

A landlord applied to retain a tenant's security deposit and for an assessment and award of damages which it allegedly suffered from cat urine which required the replacement of carpets. A Hearing Officer ordered that the $1,530 security deposit be disbursed to the tenant, and that the tenant pay the landlord damages of $4,325. The landlord appealed, arguing that it was grossly inequitable to order that the security deposit be paid out to the tenant when the award of damages exceeded the amount of the security deposit.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 3983

Rent - Security deposit - Claims allowed against deposit (incl. return of deposit) - [See Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7025 ].

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7025

Regulation - Powers of board or officers (incl. rentalsman) - Respecting deposits - A landlord applied to retain a tenant's security deposit and for an assessment and award of damages which it allegedly suffered from cat urine which required the replacement of carpets - A Hearing Officer ordered that the $1,530 security deposit be disbursed to the tenant, and that the tenant pay the landlord damages of $4,325 - The landlord appealed, arguing that it was grossly inequitable to order that the security deposit be paid out to the tenant when the award of damages exceeded the amount of the security deposit - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - Under s. 34(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, the Hearing Officer had to order the return of the security deposit to the tenant unless (1) there were exceptional circumstances preventing the landlord from complying with s. 32 or 33, and (2) to do so would be grossly inequitable - In this case, the landlord did not comply with s. 32(1)(b)(ii) because he failed to serve the tenant with a claim against the security deposit within seven business days of the tenancy ending - He sent the notice to the tenant by email, and this was not service as defined by the Act - Further, it would have been difficult to find gross inequity because the landlord accessed an alternative remedy by obtaining a damage award that could be enforced in the usual manner.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7032

Regulation - Powers of board or officers (incl. rentalsman) - Respecting damages, costs and interest - [See Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7025 ].

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 9364

Practice - Actions - Service of documents - [See Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7025 ].

Practice - Topic 2651.2

Service - Generally - E-mail - [See Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7025 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reid-Woodson v. Turcotte et al. (2012), 402 Sask.R. 274; 2012 SKQB 314, folld. [para. 14].

Ramage v. Wesaquate (2013), 419 Sask.R. 161; 2013 SKQB 152, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Residential Tenancies Act, S.S. 2006, c. R-22.0001, sect. 34(3) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Robin Goertz, for the appellant;

Holly Brown, appearing on her own behalf.

This appeal was heard before Scherman, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on February 18, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP