Docket A-011-04
Order LR04-09

IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Darlene Connelly against Order No. LD04-108 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated April 23, 2004.

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

on Monday, the 7th day of June, 2004.

Maurice Rodgerson, Chair
Anne Petley, Commissioner
Norman Gallant, Commissioner

---

Order

---

Participants

1.   Appellant:

Darlene Connelly

2.   Respondent:

Roddy MacDonald for MacDonald Construction Co. Ltd.

---

Reasons for Order

---

1.  Introduction

Darlene Connelly (Appellant) has appealed Order LD04-108 of the Director of Residential Rental Property, dated April 23, 2004 (Exhibit E-9).

The Notice of Appeal (Exhibit E-10) was received by the Prince Edward Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission on May 3, 2004.

The appeal arises from a decision of the Director on the disposition of the security deposit for a rental premises located at 4 Elizabeth Crescent, Reeves Estates, Stratford.

The appeal was heard in the main hearing room of the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission offices on Monday, May 31, 2004.

Darlene Connelly appeared as the Appellant.  The Respondent, MacDonald Construction Co. Ltd. was represented by Roddy MacDonald.

 2.  Background

The Appellant rented a unit, in a duplex, from the Respondent.  A security deposit in the amount of $350.00 was provided to the Respondent.  After the residence was vacated a dispute arose over the disposition of the security deposit. 

The Respondent filed a Form 8 Notice of Intention to Retain Security Deposit (Exhibit E-2), claiming garbage had to be removed from the unit and repairs had to be made to a door and exterior siding.

The Appellant disputed the claim and filed a Form 9 Application Re Determination of Security Deposit (Exhibit E-1).

A hearing was held by a Rental Property Officer on February 11, 2004.  The resulting Order (Exhibit E-9) has been appealed to the Commission.

3.  Decision

The appeal is denied.

The Commission was not presented with evidence or testimony, at the appeal hearing, that would substantiate overturning the decision of the Rental Property Officer.

The Appellant did submit a handwritten and signed statement (Exhibit E-13) from an employee of Foley's Transfer indicating they did not witness "any garbage strewn over the basement floor." 

However, the Respondent had submitted four handwritten and signed statements with the authors stating they observed the garbage left at the residence.

The Respondent freely states that the photos of the garbage were taken some weeks after the Appellant moved out, but also stated under oath that no one else used the unit or had access to the unit.

The Commission found the photos (Exhibit E-4) helpful in determining this matter. There are several items that are pictured in the photos that appear to be pieces of old furniture, including the headboard of a bed.  The items appear to be of a nature that could be left behind by a vacating tenant as opposed to items stored or discarded by another party.

The Appellant very strongly asserts that the items do not belong to her, and the basement was left in a clean state.  She suggests the mess may have been arranged and photographed, or caused by someone else.

The original hearing dealt with a number of matters related to claims against the security deposit.  The claim for garbage was only one of the costs requested by the Respondent.

The Commission believes there would be little benefit in the Respondent going to the expense of placing the items in the basement to support a claim to clean up a self created mess.  Nor do the items appear to be of the nature that would be placed in the unit by another party.

The Commission notes the low amount of the security deposit awarded to the Respondent and is satisfied than even a minimal amount of cleaning up of the unit would warrant such a cost.

In considering the matter, the Commission finds the claim of $22.00 to be reasonable. The Respondent did not specifically seek a higher award at the appeal hearing, so it is the decision of the Commission that the original Order be confirmed.

---