![](../../../images/iraclogo-n207b.gif)
Docket A-004-93
Order LR93-8
IN THE MATTER of the
Rental
of Residential Property Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, C.R 13.1,
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25
of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Jeanine Vanneste (the
Lessee) against Order No. LD92-177 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated
January 8, 1993.
Friday, April 2nd, 1993
Linda Webber, Chairman Michael Ryan, Commissioner Myrtle Jenkins-Smith, Commissioner
Order
Participants
1. Appellant
Lessee
Jeanine Vanneste
2. Respondent
Lessor
Calvin Mol, Property Care and Rental
Agent for George MacKenzie
Reasons for Order
1 Background
Jeanine Vanneste (the Lessee) was shown
apartment #1 at 87 Water Street, Charlottetown, P.E.I., on July 28, 1992. At that time she
said she would take it and gave the Lessor's agent two chequesone for $550.00 for
the first month's rent and one for $250.00 as a security deposit. In return she was given
the keys to the apartment.
A few days later the Lessee found out she didn't get the job she had
expected so she informed the Lessor (by leaving a message on the agent's answering
machine) on Saturday, August 1, 1992, that she could not take the apartment. On Monday,
August 3rd, she returned the keys. She had put a stop-payment on the cheques.
By Form 2, Application for Enforcement of Statutory or Other
Conditions of Rental Agreement dated November 24, 1992, the Lessor's agent sought a
finding that rent is owed and an order that the rent would be paid in the amount of
$266.00 (slightly less than one-half of one month's rent).
The Director held a hearing on December 23, 1992 and, as a result of
that hearing, ordered the Lessee to pay $266.00 to the Lessor.
By Form 17, Notice of Appeal dated February 8, 1993, the
Lessee appealed the decision of the Director.
2 Evidence & Argument
The facts set out in the Background,
above, are not in dispute. The Lessee argues that (1) her message on the answering machine
should be valid notice and (2) she was not made aware of the rules under the Rental of
Residential Property Act and it should have been the responsibility of the Lessor to
make her aware of them.
The Lessee also complained about how long the Lessor waited until
filing his claim and the fact that other parties were contacted about this matter even
though her mailing address was clearly marked on her cheques.
The Lessor's agent stated that he never got the message the Lessee
said she left on the machine but it was possible the machine was not working. He admitted
to failing to notice the address on the cheques, explaining that his attempts to locate
her caused him to talk to other people about the matter and caused the delay in the
application.
The Lessor's agent took the position that the law is clearthe
rent is owed and he is not responsible for educating tenants. As well, he stated that the
Lessee is fortunate that the apartment was re-rented quickly and for that reason the
Lessor is seeking only pro-rated rent for the 15 days it was empty.
3 Decision
The Commission sympathizes with the position
the Lessee found herself in after having committed to renting the Lessor's premises.
However, that does not change the law or the Lessee's obligations. The short time the
Lessee was committed to the premises could well have been the time during which the Lessor
could have obtained another tenant.
The Lessor and his agent are not responsibe for advising the Lessee
of the law. At the same time, we do not feel the Lessor took undue advantage of the
Lessee's position. The fact that the apartment was rented out to another person two weeks
later indicates a serious attempt to eliminate the problem created by the vacant premises
and was to the advantage of the Lessee.
The delay in filing the application is not, in our view, so long or
unreasonable as to raise any barrier to the Lessor's claim.
Accordingly,
1. The appeal is dismissed;
2. The Order of the Director is affirmed; and
3. The Lessee shall pay the sum of $266.00 to the Lessor on, or before, April 12, 1993.
An order will therefore issue.
IN THE MATTER
of the Rental
of Residential Property Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, C.R 13.1,
and
IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of
the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Jeanine Vanneste (the Lessee)
against Order No. LD92-177 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated January 8,
1993.
Order
UPON
the appeal of Jeanine Vanneste against a
decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated January 8, 1993;
AND UPON
hearing the appeal conducted in
Charlottetown on March 3, 1993;
NOW THEREFORE , for the reasons given in the
annexed Reasons for Order;
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The appeal is dismissed;
2. The Order of the Director is affirmed; and
3. The Lessee shall pay the sum of $266.00 to the Lessor on, or before, April 12, 1993.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island,
this 2nd day of April, 1993.
BY THE COMMISSION:
Linda Webber, Chairman Michael Ryan, Commissioner Myrtle Jenkins-Smith, Commissioner
|