Neufeld v. Daschuk, (2015) 469 Sask.R. 149 (QB)

Judge:Laing, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
Case Date:February 02, 2015
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:(2015), 469 Sask.R. 149 (QB);2015 SKQB 31
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neufeld v. Daschuk (2015), 469 Sask.R. 149 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.011

In The Matter Of s. 72(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.S. 2006, c. R-22.0001

C. Monica Neufeld (appellant) v. Braiden Daschuk (respondent) and Office of Residential Tenancies (respondent)

(2015 QBG No. 22; 2015 SKQB 31)

Indexed As: Neufeld v. Daschuk et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Laing, J.

February 2, 2015.

Summary:

The tenant elected not to proceed with a tenancy that was to begin on September 1, 2014. He moved out on September 3, 2014. At issue was the return of the security deposit ($1,450). On November 12, 2014, the landlord was notified of a hearing on January 7, 2015, and that she was to pay the full amount of the deposit into the Residential Tenancies office, pending the hearing, as required under s. 33(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord replied that the tenant had agreed that she would keep the security deposit because no notice was given. Further, the landlord stated that she had not retained the deposit and was unemployed so had no funds to pay into the office. The director issued an order under s. 33(8) of the Act, cancelling the hearing and ordering the landlord to return the deposit to the tenant. The landlord appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal. The order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a hearing.

Administrative Law - Topic 8265

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Exercise of - General - The tenant elected not to proceed with a tenancy that was to begin on September 1, 2014 - He moved out on September 3, 2014 - At issue was the return of the security deposit ($1,450) - On November 12, 2014, the landlord was notified of a hearing on January 7, 2015, and that she was to pay the full amount of the deposit into the Residential Tenancies office, pending the hearing, as required under s. 33(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act - The landlord replied that the tenant had agreed that she would keep the security deposit because no notice was given - Further, the landlord stated that she had not retained the deposit and was unemployed so had no funds to pay into the office - The director issued an order under s. 33(8) of the Act, cancelling the hearing and ordering the landlord to return the deposit to the tenant - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the landlord's appeal - Section 33(8) created a discretion to decide whether the landlord's failure to comply with s. 33(5) would result in the hearing's cancellation and the resulting order - The exercise of such discretion could not be arbitrary and required stated reasons for its exercise - In concluding that the Act required payment of the deposit irrespective of the dispute's merits and of why the money was not paid in, the director erred in law and failed to exercise the discretion provided in s. 33(8) - The order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a hearing.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7025

Regulation - Powers of board or officers (incl. rentalsman) - Respecting deposits - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8265 ].

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7036

Regulation - Powers of board or officers (incl. rentalsman) - Respecting procedure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8265 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reid-Woodson v. Turcotte et al. (2012), 402 Sask.R. 274; 2012 SKQB 314, refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Residential Tenancies Act, S.S. 2006, c. R-22.0001, sect. 33(8) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Monica Neufeld, appellant, on her own behalf;

No one appearing for the respondent, Braiden Daschuk;

No one appearing for the respondent, Office of Residential Tenancies.

This appeal was heard by Laing, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on February 2, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP