This appeal asks the question of
whether outstanding rent due to a landlord may be reduced, and if so, by how
much, where a tenant's personal property, held by the landlord, was damaged.
Background
The Appellant, Shernaria Morris
("Ms. Morris"), rented an apartment from the Respondent, Richard Keleher
("Mr. Keleher"), located at 69 Lilac Avenue, Charlottetown, PEI (the "Premises"). Ms. Morris moved in on September 11, 2019, and rent was due on
the first day of each month.
On August 7, 2020, Mr. Keleher
emailed to Ms. Morris a Notice of Intention to Retain Security Deposit
("Form 8") which stated that Mr. Keleher would be retaining the entire
security deposit of $1,060.40 for rent owing. On August 31, 2020, Ms. Morris
filed with the Director of Residential Rental Property (the "Director") a
Form 2 - Application for Enforcement of Statutory or Other Condition of
Rental Agreement ("Form 2").
At the hearing before the Director,
Ms. Morris testified that her television and accompanying cables (the
"Television") were not among her personal belongings returned to her and Mr.
Keleher testified that he seized the Television for distress of back rent.
The Director heard the matter on
October 9, 2020, and in Order LD20-278 ordered Ms. Morris pay Mr. Keleher
the sum of $1,789.60 for rent owing and Mr. Keleher was to return Ms.
Morris's Television to her immediately.
Ms. Morris appealed.
The Commission heard the appeal on
November 16, 2020. The parties participated by way of telephone conference
call.
Disposition
The appeal is denied.
Director's Order LD20-278 is varied to provide for rent owing in the
amount of $1,189.60, reflecting a reduction of $600 for the agreed value of
the loss of the television.
The Issues
The Commission will consider the
following questions in determining this appeal:
1. Can outstanding rent be reduced where a tenant's property was
damaged?
2. How much can the outstanding rent be reduced?
Can outstanding rent be reduced
where a tenant's property was damaged?
The Respondent wrongfully seized the
Appellant's television for distress of back rent.
The Director in Order LD20-278 ordered that the Respondent return the
television to the Appellant and the Respondent did return the television.
The Appellant discovered that the television had a cracked screen.
Both parties agree that the television was worth $600 including taxes
and fees. Both parties accept
that the television is a total loss.
In Director's Order LD20-278 the
Director stated in part:
[10] If the Television is in a
damaged or un-working state at the time the Tenant takes possession of the
Television then the Tenant may make further
application
to
the
Rental
Office
seeking
a monetary
claim against the Landlord.
There is no evidence before the
Commission that the Appellant [Tenant] made a further application to the
Director.
In the Appellant's Notice of Appeal
form, the following reasons for appeal were stated:
The reason for this appeal is
because in the last hearing that took place October 9, 2020 my television
was ordered to be returned to me immediately, I also agreed to pay $50.00 to
the landlord.
Due to not having
my TV because it was totally destroyed I should not have to pay any money
going forward as it was taken in place of the money.
In filing the appeal, the Appellant
has sought to reduce the rent owing as her television was destroyed.
The Respondent has agreed to reduce the rent owing by the full value
of the television.
Given the consent of the parties,
the Commission finds that the rent owing may be reduced.
How much can the outstanding rent be
reduced?
Based on her Notice of Appeal, the
Appellant appears to seek the elimination of her entire rental arrears of
$1,789.60 because of the destruction of her television.
The Respondent has expressed a willingness to reduce the rental
arrears by $600, representing the value of the television as identified by
the Appellant.
The Commission does not have the
jurisdiction to make a financial award including claims based on distress,
hardship or punitive damages.
Accordingly, the reduction in outstanding rent is limited to the agreed
value of the television and thus the Commission reduces the rental arrears
to $1,189.60.
NOW THEREFORE,
pursuant to the
Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission
Act and the
Rental of Residential Property Act
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1.
The appeal is denied.
2.
Given that the Appellant's television is
considered a total loss with an agreed value of $600, Director's Order
LD20-278 is varied to reduce the rental arrears of $1,789.60 to
$1,189.60.
DATED
at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island,
this 20th day of November, 2020.
BY THE COMMISSION
:
Erin T. Mitchell, Panel Chair & Commissioner
Jean Tingley, Commissioner
NOTICE
Sections 26.(2), 26.(3), 26.(4)
and 26.(5) of the
Rental of Residential Property Act
provide as follows:
26.(2) A lessor or
lessee may, within fifteen days of the decision of the Commission,
appeal to the court on a question of law only.
(3) The rules of court governing appeals apply
to an appeal under subsection (2).
(4) Where the Commission has confirmed,
reversed or varied an order of the Director and no appeal has been taken
within the time specified in subsection (2), the lessor or lessee may
file the order in the court.
(5) Where an order is filed pursuant to
subsection (4), it may be enforced as if it were an order of the court.