Docket A-007-99
IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Ernest Mutch (the Lessee) against Order LD99-140 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated October 6, 1999.
Order LR99-9BEFORE THE COMMISSION
on Friday, the 15th day of October, 1999.Ginger Breedon, Vice-Chair
James Carragher, Commissioner
Arthur Hudson, Commissioner
Order
Participants1. Appellant:Ernest Mutch (Lessee)
Pamela Clark (Co-occupant and Witness)2. Respondent:
Gc & S Enterprises Inc.
Represented by Agent Al Allen (Lessor)
Reasons for Order
1. Introduction
The Appellant, Ernest Mutch, is making an appeal under Section 25(1) of the Rental of Residential Property Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. R-13 (the Act). The Appellant is appealing Order LD99-140 (Exhibit E-5) of the Director of Residential Rental Property issued by Residential Rental Property Officer Shayne Hogan (the Director) on October 6, 1999. Order LD99-140 directs that the rental agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent be terminated as of 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 6, 1999 and the Appellant (Lessee) vacate apartment unit #7 at 532 Queen Street, Charlottetown, P.E.I. on or before this date and time. The Order also noted that the Lessor and Lessee were verbally advised of the Director's decision at the conclusion of the hearing.
In appealing Order LD99-140, the Appellant in his Notice of Appeal (Exhibit E-6) dated October 8, 1999, indicates that he disputes the allegations made by Mr. Allen.
The Commission heard this appeal on October 14, 1999 at the Commission's offices in Charlottetown, P.E.I. Ernest Mutch (Lessee), Pamela Clark (Co-occupant and Witness) and Al Allen (Lessor) were present for the hearing.
2. Background
Documents from the Office of the Director of Residential Rental Property pertaining to the appeal were tabled at the hearing and identified as Exhibits E-1 through E-8. These documents had previously been circulated to the Appellant and Respondent.
A further document had been received by the Commission from the Office of the Director of Residential Rental Property subsequent to the circulation of the package containing Exhibits E-1 through E-8. This document, identified as Exhibit E-9, October 13, 1999 letter from Richard Collins, Deputy Chief of Police, was circulated to both parties at the hearing and tabled as part of the documentary material.
The Appellant in presenting his position in support of his appeal referred extensively to Order LD99-140 (Exhibit E-5) and provided testimony on each of the incidents identified by the Respondent (Lessor). In so doing, the Appellant's position can be summarized as follows:
He and Ms. Clark have called the police on a number of occasions including the incident involving the broken window in May 1999 (Respondent agrees that this was May not April 1999 as indicated in Order LD99-140). That the other calls involved problems with noise and disturbances from parties in an apartment above the Appellant's and that, as a result, the police have been to the apartment building a number of times. The Appellant and his Witness also indicated that they have brought this problem to the attention of Richard Casford, the building superintendent, a number of times.
The Appellant acknowledges that the police did arrest him in September 1999 for being drunk in a public place, the front steps of the apartment building, but contends that he was only having a drink on his own front steps.
The Appellant also acknowledges that he did knock over the bicycle of another lessee one night in September when he was coming home from having a few drinks. He says it was an accident and that he placed the bicycle upright after knocking it over. He also indicates that he did refuse to open the door to his apartment for the police but did so later after his mother arrived.
The Appellant denies that he has harassed other lessees in the building and can only assume that they have misunderstood his passing comments or actions. He also testifies that he was not intoxicated on these occasions and was either trying to be helpful or making a humorous comment.
The Appellant and the Witness both pointed out the ongoing problem with the noise and disturbances from the parties held in the apartment above them. The Appellant refutes the comments contained in the letter provided by one of the lessees in the upstairs apartment, Jeff Smith (Exhibit E-3). The Appellant indicates that he did go to Mr. Smith's apartment a number of times to bring to his and the other lessee's attention that they were causing a disturbance. In so doing, he sometimes found the door open and did go in to talk to the involved lessees. He does not feel he harassed these lessees or opened their door and walked in.
The Appellant does not believe he has harassed any lessees in the apartment building and does not accept that some of the lessees in the building may feel threatened or scared of him.
The Respondent's position on the appeal can be summarized as follows:
The Respondent acknowledges that there had been some problem with noise from the apartment above the Appellant's unit. He further indicates that following a complaint to Mr. Casford, the building superintendent, by the Co-occupant/Witness on a Sunday morning about noise from a party, that a letter of warning was issued to the lessees in the apartment above the Appellant's and that since then he has not received any further complaints from other lessees in the building.
The Respondent testified that he has received a number of complaints regarding the Appellant from lessees of four other units in the apartment building. These complaints relate to the Appellant drinking and harassing or threatening other lessees in the building. A number of these have been outlined in Order LD99-140 (Exhibit E-5). As a result of some of these complaints, the Respondent has called the police three times to the building.
The Respondent also notes that he visited the apartment building following the complaint by another lessee regarding the Appellant's alleged abuse of the other lessee's bicycle and barbecue, which resulted in the call to the police. The Respondent testifies that he saw the barbecue on its side on the ground with its grates, coals and other internal parts spread around.
The Respondent further testifies that he is receiving calls from some of his long term lessees who are indicating to him that they will move out if the Appellant continues to reside in the building as they feel threatened by and scared of the Appellant. The Respondent believes the other lessees in the building are not able to have proper enjoyment of their units because of the actions of the Appellant. The Respondent therefore wants the rental agreement with the Appellant terminated and the Appellant to leave the apartment unit as soon as possible.
3. Decision
After considering the evidence presented by way of documentation and testimony, and reviewing the Act and its application to the facts, the Commission denies the appeal and confirms the Director's Order with a variance to the date of vacating the involved apartment unit.
In making this decision, the Commission has been directed by Statutory Condition 6.3 which is established in the Act and applies to any rental agreement between a lessor and lessee. Statutory Condition 6.3 provides the following:
6.3 Good Behaviour
The lessee and any person admitted to the premises by the lessee shall conduct themselves in such a manner as not to interfere with the possession, occupancy or quiet enjoyment of other lessees.
Notwithstanding the Appellant's belief that his actions do not interfere with the possession, occupancy or quiet enjoyment of other lessees, the Commission believes that some of those actions do, in fact, so interfere. The Commission accepts the Respondent's testimony on the substantial number of complaints he has received from other lessees in the building regarding the Appellant's actions. For example, the Commission notes the incident with the bicycle and barbecue. Whether the Appellant was intoxicated or only having a few drinks, and whether the knocking over of the bicycle and barbecue was inadvertent or on purpose, the Commission believes other lessees should not have to experience this type of situation. In this case, the Commission also has trouble understanding how the Appellant would inadvertently knock these items over if he was simply entering the apartment building after having a few drinks.
The Commission also accepts the Respondent's testimony that a number of the complaints to him are based on other lessees believing they are being harassed or threatened by the Appellant. These types of situations are totally unacceptable for other lessees. The Respondent's need to call the police on three occasions to deal with actions of the Appellant further points to an atmosphere which does not provide the opportunity for "quiet enjoyment" of their premises by other lessees.
The Commission notes the letter from Deputy Police Chief Collins (Exhibit E-9) which indicates that the police have dealt with approximately seven (7) specific occurrences at 532 Queen Street over the past few months, and that these occurrences refer only to those instances at or near the Appellant's residence. Deputy Chief Collins' comments that such occurrences indicate a general disruption and discomfort to the residents of the building also causes the Commission concern from both a human, as well as a legislative (Statutory Condition 6.3 of the Act) basis.
The Commission therefore concludes that at least some of the actions by the Appellant have been such that they breach Statutory Condition 6.3 of the Act because other lessees have had their statutory right of quiet enjoyment of their units interfered with by the Appellant. Based on this conclusion and the Respondent's application for early termination of the rental agreement with the Appellant (Section 14(3) of the Act), the Commission orders that the rental agreement be terminated effective 5:00 p.m. October 21, 1999 and that the Appellant vacate the involved unit on or before this date and time.
IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Ernest Mutch (the Lessee) against Order LD99-140 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated October 6, 1999.
Order
WHEREAS
Ernest Mutch filed an appeal dated October 8, 1999 against a decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property;AND WHEREAS
the Commission heard the appeal in Charlottetown on October 14, 1999;NOW THEREFORE
, for the reasons given in the annexed Reasons for Order;IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The appeal is denied;
2. The rental agreement between the Appellant and Respondent is terminated effective 5:00 p.m. October 21, 1999;
3. The Appellant shall vacate the involved premises at 532 Queen Street, Charlottetown, P.E.I., on or before 5:00 p.m. October 21, 1999.
DATED
at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 15th day of October, 1999.BY THE COMMISSION:
Ginger Breedon, Vice-Chair
James Carragher, Commissioner
Arthur Hudson, 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.