Docket A-016-97
Order LR98-1

IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by David Dodds (the Lessor) against Order LD97-211 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated November 14, 1997.

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

on Thursday, the 5th day of February, 1998.

Ginger Breedon, Vice-Chair
 Elizabeth MacDonald, Commissioner
 Clayton Bulpitt, Commissioner

Order

Participants

1. Appellant:

David Dodds (Lessor)
Charles Clarkson (Witness)

2. Respondent:

Paula R. Price (Lessee)

Reasons for Order

1. Introduction

David Dodds is appealing Order LD97-211, dated November 14, 1997, of the Director of Residential Rental Property. This Order identifies deficiencies in a rental unit at 165 King Street in Charlottetown, P.E.I. and directs the Lessor, Mr. Dodds, to correct them.

In making his appeal, Mr. Dodds has indicated on Form 17, Notice of Appeal (Exhibit E-5), that his reasons for the appeal are:

  • Discriminatory
  • Two inspections after one approval
  • My side wasn't listened to
  • Rest to follow

2. Background

Ms. Price, the Lessee, at 165 King Street, provided notice to the Lessor on October 1, 1997, that she would be terminating her rental of the unit effective November 1, 1977. Ms. Price subsequently, on October 2, 1997 filed a Form 2, Application for Enforcement of Statutory or Other Conditions of Rental Agreement (Exhibit E-1), with the Director of Residential Rental Property. In that Form, Ms. Price indicated she was seeking an inspection of the unit and the making of necessary repairs.

Following receipt of Ms. Price's application, an authorized designate of the Director of Residential Rental Property issued a Form 7, Inspection Order (Exhibit E-2). This order directed the Lessor to make the unit available for inspection on the 16th day of October 1997 at 10:00 a.m. The authorized designate, the Residential Rental Property Officer, arranged to have Tim McCullough, an Environmental Health Inspector from Queens Region Health and Community Services Agency, assist with the inspection of the unit at 165 King Street.

The October 16, 1997 inspection was carried out by the Residential Rental Property Officer and Mr. McCullough. Also present were Ms. Price, Mr. Dodds and Charles Clarkson. Mr. Clarkson works with Mr. Dodds. Following the inspection, Mr. McCullough, in an October 20, 1997 letter to Mr. Dodds (Exhibit E-3), identified a number of deficiencies that needed correction before the re-rental of the unit. He also noted that he would schedule a compliance inspection for Friday, October 31, 1997 at 9:00 a.m.

Subsequent to Mr. McCullough's letter to Mr. Dodds, Order LD97-211 of the Director of Residential Rental Property was issued. This Order, issued on November 14, 1997, directed the Lessor to correct a list of deficiencies within two (2) weeks from the date of the Order except as otherwise noted. The list of deficiencies contained in the Order include at least some of those identified by Mr. McCullough in his letter to Mr. Dodds, as well as others identified by the Director of Residential Rental Property during the inspection of the unit.

Following the issuance of the Order, Mr. Dodds appealed the Order by submitting Form 17, Notice of Appeal, (Exhibit E-5) on December 3, 1997. Upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal, the Commission established a hearing date for December 22, 1997. Mr. Dodds subsequently contacted the Commission requesting a postponement of the hearing due to health problems. The hearing was reconvened on January 19, 1998.

At the January 19, 1998 hearing it quickly became obvious that the relationship between the Lessor and Lessee had been seriously strained for some years. As a result, both parties had difficulty in fulfilling their obligations within the rental arrangement.

Mr. Dodds in his testimony stated that there had been many occasions when he attempted to carry out repairs in the rental unit but the Lessee would not allow him appropriate access. Mr. Dodds' witness, Charles Clarkson, also spoke of specific instances where he felt the Lessee had not been cooperative in allowing access for repairs. Both Messrs. Dodds and Clarkson described occasions when access was denied even when twenty-four hour notice was provided.

The Lessee, Ms. Price, in her testimony indicated that she had informed the Lessor and Mr. Clarkson on many occasions of the need for specific repairs in the unit. She also indicated that she had reasonably cooperated with the Lessor and Mr. Clarkson but they had not followed the required procedures for gaining access to her unit, as provided in the Rental of Residential Property Act.

Mr. Dodds questioned why Ms. Price waited until she gave notice of termination of the rental arrangement before requesting an inspection of the unit by the Director of Residential Rental Property. Ms. Price indicated she was aware that Mr. Dodds was going to prepare a damage report on the unit before she moved out. She felt it was important for her protection to have an inspection of the condition of the unit carried out before any such report was prepared by Mr. Dodds.

Mr. Dodds testified that Ms. Price had never written him with complaints about repair deficiencies and he questioned why, if these deficiencies were serious, she had not done so. Ms. Price responded that she should not have to do so since Mr. Dodds was well aware of the problems and should have been properly looking after his rental building.

In response to a question from the panel, Mr. Dodds agreed that a number of the identified deficiencies did require repair but that he had not been able to do them, because of the abuse and lack of cooperation from Ms. Price. In agreeing that deficiencies do exist, Mr. Dodds did, however, indicate that he did not believe all of the identified repair requirements were necessary or appropriate.

Mr. Dodds further testified that Mr. McCullough had carried out the compliance inspection referred to in his letter of October 20, 1997 to Mr. Dodds (Exhibit E-3), and that Mr. McCullough had indicated that the required work was completed. Mr. Dodds then questioned why he subsequently received an Order from the Director of Residential Rental Property dated November 14, 1997 directing him to carry out the repairs already inspected by Mr. McCullough and other repairs that had not been identified in Mr. McCullough's letter. In response to a question from the panel, Mr. Dodds indicated that he had not received anything in writing from Mr. McCullough confirming that all the work had been satisfactorily completed.

In concluding his testimony, Mr. Dodds stated that he wished the panel to consider the following remedies to his appeal:

1.    The list of identified deficiencies contained in the Order of the Director of Residential Rental Property be set aside. In requesting this he noted that the existing lessees are happy with the condition of the unit.

2.    If this list is not set aside, that a re-inspection be carried out to see what has been done and to obtain information from the new lessees on what they have agreed to do on maintenance.

3.    That adequate time be established to permit any outstanding repairs to be carried out in an appropriate manner.

3. Decision

In considering the reasons identified by Mr. Dodds in his Notice of Appeal for appealing the Order of the Director of Residential Rental Property, the Commission has found the following from the hearing of this appeal.

Discriminatory

There is no evidence of discrimination. The Lessee acted within the provisions of the Rental of Residential Property Act in requesting an inspection of the rental unit. The Residential Rental Property Officer carried out his duties within the provisions of the Act. And, finally, the Commission fulfilled its role in an appropriate manner in hearing Mr. Dodds' appeal.

Two inspections after one approval

Under Section 8(a) of the Act, the Director of Residential Rental Property or someone authorized by him can inspect a rental unit if a person makes a proper written application. This Section of the Act does not limit the number of inspections or who specifically can inspect. Clearly, depending on what needs to be inspected, more than one inspector may be required to bring different expertise to the inspection (e.g. plumbing inspector, health inspector, electrical inspector, rental officer). Further, more than one inspection could well be required to permit the different inspectors an opportunity to carry out their inspection and to provide for inspections to ensure the required repair work has been property completed.

My side wasn't listened to

The Commission has found no evidence that Mr. Dodds did not receive appropriate service from the involved Residential Rental Property Officer. However, notwithstanding what may or may not have happened between the Lessor and the Residential Rental Property Officer, the Commission is satisfied that it has provided the Lessor with a full and complete hearing of his case.

Rest to follow

As above, the Commission believes it provided full opportunity for Mr. Dodds to present his case during the January 19, 1998 hearing.

On the more substantive matters, and based on the information presented at the hearing, the Commission has no reason to question the list of repairs contained in the Order of the Director of Residential Rental Property. The Lessor, himself, agreed that a number of the identified repairs are required. He also indicated, however, that he could not carry out the repairs over the years because the Lessee would not cooperate in providing him or repair people appropriate access to the unit.

While the Commission is aware that a difficult relationship existed between the Lessor and Lessee, the Act provides a procedure for the Lessor to gain entry to a unit. As such, while a Lessee can make entry for repair work difficult, he or she can not stop the Lessor from entering the unit if the Lessor follows the proper procedures. If the Lessee does, the Lessor can bring this failure to comply with the Act to the attention of the Director of Residential Rental Property and seek appropriate remedy.

The Commission therefore agrees with Order LD97-211 of the Director of Residential Rental Property issued November 14, 1997.

The Commission does, however, also agree with the concern expressed by the Lessor regarding the lack of coordination between the Director of Residential Rental Property and the Health Inspector, Mr.McCullough. As previously outlined, the Health Inspector carried out a joint inspection of the unit with the Residential Rental Property Officer. The Health Inspector then, by means of a letter, directed the Lessor to correct a number of identified deficiencies within a specified time period which, in turn, were to be followed up with a compliance inspection.

At the same time, and in a somewhat separate process, the Director of Residential Rental Property issued an Order requiring the correction of a number of deficiencies, within a specific time period. Some of these deficiencies are the same or similar to those identified in the health Inspector's letter but are repeated in the Director's Order with a different time period for correction.

The Commission shares the Lessor's confusion and difficulties with these dual processes on the one rental unit.

The Commission recognizes that there may be some legal reasons why the Health Inspector has to act independently of the Director, However, the Commission believes that if this is so, the Director as the lead party in the administration of the Rental of Residential Property Act, must take responsibility for ensuring appropriate coordination. Ideally, the deficiencies identified by the health Inspector in the joint inspection should be incorporated into the Director's order and, if necessary, a joint compliance inspection arranged.

If this is not possible, the Director must ensure that the Lessor and Lessee clearly understand that there are two related but separate processes taking place. If this is the case, he should also make every possible effort to ensure that there is clear distinction between those deficiencies being identified and ordered to be corrected by the Health Inspector and those being identified and order to be corrected by the Director. The Director should lead and bring maximum coordination to this process.

The Commission believes that in this case, the Director of Residential Rental Property or his authorized designate must contact Mr. McCullough to arrange for coordination of the compliance and timing for the ordered repairs. The Director or his designate must also contact Mr. Dodds to clarify the joint process with him.

IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by David Dodds (the Lessor) against Order LD97-211 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated November 14, 1997.

Order

WHEREAS David Dodds filed an appeal against a decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated November 14, 1997;

AND WHEREAS the Commission heard the appeal in Charlottetown on January 19, 1998;

NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons given in the annexed Reasons for Order;

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.    The appeal is denied;

2.    The Director of Residential Rental Property or his authorized designate is to contact as soon as possible the Health Inspector and, subsequently, the Lessor to ensure proper coordination is in place between the Health Inspector's directions on repairs and timing and those of the Director.

DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 5th day of February, 1998.

BY THE COMMISSION:

Ginger Breedon, Vice-Chair
Elizabeth MacDonald, Commissioner
Clayton Bulpitt. 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.