Docket A-012-02
IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Milton Dyment against Order No. LD02-197 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated September 26, 2002.
Order LR02-08BEFORE THE COMMISSION
on Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2002.
Maurice Rodgerson, Panel Chair
Weston Rose, Commissioner
Anne Petley, Commissioner
Order
Participants1. Appellant:Milton Dyment - Lessor
Earl Clements – Witness2. Respondent:
Gail DesRoches - Lessee
Shirley Perry - Witness
Reasons for Order
1. Introduction
This is an Appeal under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act of an Order of the Director of Residential Rental Property regarding property located at 206 Commerce Crescent in Summerside, specifically apartment #47. The apartment is occupied by Gail DesRoches, the Lessee in this appeal. The apartment building was owned at the time by Milton Dyment, the Lessor in this appeal.
2. Background
The Lessee occupies an apartment at 206 Commerce Crescent and claims to have experienced a serious infestation of mice. She states she complained to the maintenance person looking after the building and to the Lessor's office. Traps and poison were used and eventually a professional pest control company had to be employed.
The Lessor claims he never heard about the problem until it became necessary to call in pest control, and if he had been aware it was as serious as claimed he would have taken earlier action.
The Lessee was granted a return of rent for the month of May. That Order was appealed by the Lessor.
3. Decision
The Commission finds for the Lessee.
Section 6 of the Rental of Residential Property Act sets out certain Statutory Conditions. Condition one states:
1. Condition of Premises
The lessor shall keep the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation during the tenancy and shall comply with any enactment respecting standards of health, safety or housing notwithstanding any state of non-repair that may have existed at the time the agreement was entered into.
Some facts are not contested. The Lessor's maintenance person admitted there were mice, but stated he was not aware the infestation was as serious as it ended up being. He had distributed traps and poison. All agree the infestation did become serious enough that a professional pest control service was required.
The Lessor stated he was not aware of the seriousness of the infestation, and while that may very well be true, the Commission is satisfied that his representatives were aware of the problem, and more aggressive steps should have been taken to eliminate the mice and make access for mice more difficult. A minor mouse problem, not promptly and effectively controlled, can lead to a much more serious infestation. It appears to the Commission that if more action had been taken earlier this matter would never have proceeded to the present dispute.
Both the Lessor and Lessee made reference to another tenant who is alleged to have garbage in the basement that may have helped attract mice; however, the Lessor should have taken action to ensure that problem was addressed. He could have applied to the Director of Residential Rental Property, if necessary, to support those efforts.
Sworn testimony from two present tenants and one former tenant support the claim of mice being a problem in the complex. The letter from the Environmental Health Officer (Exhibit E-3) offers the Commission an objective assessment of the situation that existed by the end of the month of May.
The Commission notes the comments of the Environmental Health Officer (Exhibit E-3) which stated several tenants had confirmed there was a problem with mice. This followed a site assessment by the Health Officer, who stated in her letter "Many mice have been trapped in the cupboards above the kitchen sinks and several have been found in a toilet bowl. A photograph of mice droppings in a cupboard above a kitchen sink was taken. There were also similar accounts from tenants that mice can be heard running and scratching inside the walls and ceilings throughout the entire complex."
The Lessee offered testimony of a significant number of mice caught in her apartment, but also stated that the problem no longer exists.
The Commission is satisfied the problem did not arise overnight, and could have been prevented from becoming more serious. The Commission is also satisfied the mice infestation violated the Statutory Conditions in the Act.
The Commission believes the Director acted appropriately in ordering the return of rent for the month of May.
For these reasons the Commission orders the return of rent in the amount of $537.42 to the Lessee.
Order
WHEREAS Milton Dyment filed an appeal against a decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated October 8, 2002;
AND WHEREAS the Commission heard the appeal in Charlottetown on Monday, October 28, 2002;
NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons given in the annexed Reasons for Order;
IT IS ORDERED THAT
; and
- The appeal is denied;
- Order LD02-197 of the Director of Residential Rental Property is confirmed
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 31st day of October, 2002.
BY THE COMMISSION:
Maurice Rodgerson, Panel ChairWeston Rose, Commissioner
Anne Petley, Commissioner
NOTICE
Sections 26.(2), 26.(3), 26.(4) and 26.(5) of the Rental of Residential Property Act provide as follows:
(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.