Docket LR05015
Order LR05-12

IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Carmen MacArthur against a decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property, dated October 7, 2005.

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

on Thursday, the 8th day of December, 2005.

Weston Rose, Commissioner
Norman Gallant, Commissioner
Kathy Kennedy, Commissioner

---

Order

---

Participants

1.   Appellant:

Carmen MacArthur

2.  Respondent:

Sharon Jamieson

---

Reasons for Order

---

1.  Introduction

Carmen MacArthur (the Appellant) appealed Order LD05-249 (Exhibit E-5) issued by the Office of the Director of Residential Rental Property (the Director) on October 7, 2005.  The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the Commission) received the Appellant's Notice of Appeal (Exhibit E-6) on October 27, 2005. 

The Director's Order and the present appeal concern a rental unit located at 4 Centennial Drive, Charlottetown (the unit).

The appeal was heard in the Commission's main hearing room in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island on Friday, November 25, 2005.  The Appellant was present in person at the hearing.  Sharon Jamieson (the Respondent), who is currently residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, participated in the hearing via the Atlantic Relay Service.

2.  Background

The Appellant and Respondent entered into an oral month-to-month rental agreement for the unit commencing December 1, 2004.  The Respondent paid a security deposit of $350.00 with rent payable in the amount of $540.00 payable on the first day of every month.

In early March 2005, the Respondent informed the Appellant that she would be vacating the unit by the end of April 2005.  The Respondent had the electrical service disconnected on April 4, 2005.  She vacated the unit on April 14, 2005 and another tenant moved into the unit on April 15, 2005. 

In Order LD05-249, the Director ordered the Appellant to return rent in the amount of $270.00 to the Respondent.  This amount represented a pro-rated portion of the monthly rent for the last fifteen days of April 2005.

3.  Decision

The appeal is denied for the reasons that follow. 

The Appellant submits that he had discussed the issue of a return of rent with the Respondent.  The Appellant submits that the understanding was that if he received rent for the unit for the last half of April 2005, the Respondent would have half of her April 2005 rent returned to her.  While a tenant did move into the unit on April 15, 2005, this tenant was an existing tenant of the Appellant and this tenant did not pay any April rent for the unit.  The Appellant noted that the Respondent returned the keys early and he then returned her damage deposit early. 

The Respondent submits that the Appellant had agreed to return half of her April 2005 rent in the event that a new tenant moved into the unit in April 2005.   

The Commission finds that the Appellant and the Respondent each have a different understanding of their discussions that took place in April 2005.  The Appellant's understanding was that a return of half the month's rent was conditional on receiving half a month's rent from a new tenant.  No such rent was received from a new tenant and therefore there was no obligation to return half of the April rent to the Respondent.  The Respondent's understanding of the discussions did not include a condition that a new tenant pay rent for moving in to the unit early. 

Unfortunately, these differing understandings once again illustrate the importance of obtaining a written agreement, or at the very least, each party clearly presenting their position to the other party in writing.  This is especially imperative where there may be challenges to clear communication between the parties to a rental agreement.   

Accordingly, under these circumstances, the Commission is not prepared to reverse the findings of the Director.  The Commission hereby orders the Appellant to pay the Respondent the sum of $270.00 on or before December 31, 2005.

---