Small Claims Court

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Strategic Atlantic Ltd. v. G.M., 2018 NSSM 84

 

 

Claim No: SCCH 470140

 

BETWEEN:

 

STRATEGIC ATLANTIC LTD.

Appellant/

Landlord

 

and

 

G.M.

Respondent/

Tenant

 

Edwina Bishop appeared for the Landlord, Strategic Atlantic Ltd.

The Tenant, G.M. was self-represented.

 

 

Editorial Note: The electronic version of this judgment has been edited for grammar, punctuation and like errors, and addresses, phone numbers and some identifying personal information have been removed.

 

 

DECISION

 

Background

(1)          This is an appeal of the Decision and Order of Residential Tenancies Officer, Jason Warham dated October 30, 2017. In his decision, Mr. Warham found the presence of rats and mice justified an abatement in G.M.’s rent of $2891.80 and $110 as total compensation to repair a damaged table and replace towels caused when the ceiling leaked. The Tenancy Officer found there was agreement between the parties for the Tenant to vacate by December 31, 2017. He also found an agreement on the part of G.M. to pay rent of $1000. G.M. agreed to vacate the premises by January 31, 2018. There was no evidence of an agreement to pay $1000.

 

(2)          The matter was originally set for hearing on November 23, 2017. However, it was necessary to set a special hearing. The matter was heard on December 20, 2017 and completed on January 22, 2018.

 

(3)          When the matter resumed on January 22, G.M. did not appear as she indicated in December. Ms. Bishop advised that G.M. vacated the premises on
December 22, 2017. I filed an Order on January 23, 2018 declaring the tenancy
terminated, with the remaining issues to be addressed by subsequent decision and order. What follows is the decision.

 

(4)          Both the Landlord and Tenant appealed Mr. Warham’s decision and order. The Landlord appealed on the ground that they acted appropriately to address the rats and mice, arguing they should not be required to pay the abatement. The Tenant’s appeal is lengthy consisting of an 18 page Notice of Appeal. She is seeking a substantial abatement on various grounds, much of which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.

 

(5)          An appeal from the decision of a Residential Tenancies Officer is a new hearing based on the evidence presented before the Small Claims Court Adjudicator. The evidence presented usually consists of that presented to the Residential Tenancies Officer (in whole or in part) and any additional evidence the parties seek to adduce. An adjudicator may confirm the Order of the Residential Tenancies Officer or vary it as he or she considers just and appropriate based on this evidence.

(6)          As this is a new hearing, any issues G.M. had with Mr. Warham are not relevant for this appeal. The evidence was heard anew.

(7)          The building in this case, [address removed] is owned by Strategic Atlantic Ltd. The property manager is MetCap Living. The Tenant’s interactions throughout this matter were mostly, if not exclusively, with representatives of MetCap. Throughout this decision, I have referred to Strategic Atlantic and MetCap interchangeably as “the Landlord”, except where necessary to refer to one of those entities specifically.

 

(8)          The Landlord and Tenant were parties to a lease dated October 1, 2011. The lease is a year to year lease. The premises were [address removed]. The monthly rent was originally $695. It was raised to $750, until October 1, 2017, at which time, according to the Landlord, it was $761. The Landlord holds a security deposit of $351.94.

(9)          While the evidence and documentation particularly that of the Tenant, are quite lengthy, I have read and reviewed it all in preparation of this decision. In essence, the arguments for an abatement can be shortened to the following: (1) conduct of the Landlord’s employees during the tenancy, specifically allegations of harassment by Brenda LaPlante, on the quality of G.M.’s tenancy; (2) the effect of the presence of rats and mice in the building on the quality of her tenancy. All of the Tenant’s claims for payment of money arise out of these grounds.

(10)       Before addressing the specific issues, I have summarized the evidence of each witness below.

Evidence

Tenant’s Evidence

(11)       Constable Jeffery David Nicholson is a member of the Halifax Regional Police Department. He has been a police officer for 15 years. He currently serves as the Community Officer for Dartmouth North. He describes G.M. as a community contact. He has met with her on several occasions when she performed her volunteer work and in answer to several concerns she had.

 

(12)       Constable Nicholson met with G.M. to discuss issues she was having with the building manager, Brenda LaPlante. She felt Ms. LaPlante was making concerted efforts to make her uncomfortable. Constable Nicholson met separately with each of Ms. LaPlante and G.M. to see if the behaviour described was harassment. Cst. Nicholson was of the view there were no grounds for charges of criminal harassment. He sought a different solution, given that Ms. LaPlante worked in the same building where G.M. lived. They resolved the two women would not deal with each other anymore unless necessary.

 

(13)       On September 19, 2017, Cst. Nicholson met with Ms. LaPlante again as G.M. described further interactions. G.M. was of the view that somebody had been in her apartment without her consent and without notice. Cst. Nicholson suggested a camera be installed to see if any evidence could be obtained. G.M. reported that the incident had stopped.

 

(14)       Under cross-examination, Constable Nicholson confirmed he has served as a community officer for the past three and half years. The complaints regarding Ms. LaPlante have occurred only for the past six months. He summarized G.M.’s complaints as Ms. LaPlante and others getting in her personal space and someone had been leaving notes on her car. Cst. Nicholson did not see the notes. They were not provided in evidence. He testified that there was only one other incident relating to MetCap staff over the last number of years. That involved yelling between tenants and management. It was not related to this matter. He does not believe the matter went any further.

(15)       Anne Beek is a tenant at [address removed] in a different unit. She has known G.M. through interactions in the neighbourhood and the community volunteer center. She has been a tenant at the building for three years. She recently relocated within the building from her basement to a unit on another floor due to a sewer backup. Her new place is smaller. She was given her damage deposit by the Landlord.

 

(16)       She tendered into evidence copies of letters that she prepared regarding rats in the building. She noted she saw three rats in her bathroom. They were harmless and her son took care of them. Her son found it difficult to sleep due to rats in the building. She filed a complaint to HRM. Ms. Beek and reported the issue to Metcap who advised her they were moles not rats and they were harmless. The rats did not come into the apartment. She inquired about pest control and they were told the only way to deal with it was to rip up the ceiling. The managers were not prepared to authorize such a step. When asked if she had any subsequent rat issues, she answered in the negative. She described difficulties she had with Ms. LaPlante in the past. She describes her living arrangements as satisfactory. She had had no difficulties with her landlord since. Ms. Beek has had a falling out with G.M.

 

(17)       Jason Thibeau is the assistant building official and fire inspector for the Halifax Regional Municipality. He met G.M. when she filed a complaint regarding conditions at her residence in November 2016. The situation concerned by law M–200 regarding the minimum standards for occupancy.

 

(18)       He testified the call from G.M. came by way of the 311 system. He was given the referral. There were e-mails between G.M. and HRM. He testified that he attended the building and met G.M. there. She showed him rat holes which were filled in with concrete. She was concerned that the rats were trapped in the building with no means of escape. Mr. Thibeau advised G.M. he was not surprised to see rat holes since there are rodents in that area.

(19)       The first report to his office of a rodent concern occurred on November 4, 2016. It was in response to an inspection conducted in the last week of October at [address removed]. He spoke with G.M. who mentioned she was not sleeping well and having anxiety due to the rats. She gave him a USB containing audio clips of rats making sounds in the walls and ceilings. He testified that usually one finds physical evidence of rats such as feces or damage, but he noticed none during the inspection. There could be rats in the unseen areas of the building. He reported his findings to MetCap.

 

(20)       At this point, Mr. Thibeau did not feel it necessary to issue an order to remedy the situation. The main complaint from G.M. was rodents in the ceilings and walls. He found it was difficult to remedy a situation without visible evidence.

 

(21)       Rather than issuing an order, he discussed the issue with Teddy Zaghnoul and other representatives from MetCap recommending the matter be looked into. At that point, he felt the issue would be addressed. Mr. Thibeau received a package of information from Metcap approximately two months later. He felt it adequately addressed the issues in the whole building. He did not feel there were any concerns regarding compliance.

(22)       G.M. sought to introduce the audio clip of rats crawling in the ceiling and wall. I told G.M. it was not necessary to introduce the audio clip for I would have no way of knowing which sound was relevant. I could not see that it came from a rat.
Rather I would take her word that there was something in her ceiling and walls making a noise. They received a report from the pest control technician who indicated all of the rodent problems were in the basement. Mr. Thibeau testified there was no evidence of rodents being in the ceiling from his visual inspection.

 

(23)       G.M. testified that she is a social worker and worked as a consultant on the [personal information removed]. She had worked in the public service and at one point was a victim of crime. She has referred openly in court to past tragedies in her life. There was no reason to seek clarification or detail. Indeed, it would have been neither relevant nor appropriate. Simply stated, I take her at her word that she has endured a lot during her lifetime.

(24)       She described her relationship with MetCap as very hostile. She feels she has been exploited and victimized. She described a substantial e-mail campaign which she conducted with the landlord. On May 31, 2016, she e-mailed the landlord indicating that there was something running in the ceiling. She did not receive a response from anybody. She sent a total of eight e-mails. On November 7, 2016, she had her pest control concerns taken to management, under the threat of going to Residential Tenancies. She felt Ms. Craig’s tone was hostile. She described the sensation of living with rats as feeling surrounded. She did not sleep well and stated she was “staggering and stuttering” as a result.

(25)       She contacted Jason Thibeau on October 5 on her own accord. He attended to her place on November 7. When asked by the court if she had seen rats and mice in her unit, G.M.’s answer was “not yet”. She described the noises as disturbing. She felt the relationship between Mr. Thibeau and MetCap was “too close” as she felt her concerns were not being taken seriously. She was distressed and wanted the issue resolved.

 

(26)       G.M. complained to her landlord that she noticed two to eight “Rent to Kill” trucks next door treating bed bugs.

 

(27)       She described where the previous pest control company removed ceiling fans and put a trap in the hole before closing it up. She felt everyone was backing out of their obligations. She proposed to hire her own contractor.

 

(28)       She spoke with Corey at Rent to Kill, who only entered her unit twice.

(29)       In January 2017, Metcap began dealing with Able Pest Control, whose manager, Richard Johnson, she found to be very respectful. She and Mr. Johnson spoke at length about the processes of setting bait boxes and rat traps. She did not see any rats removed and she felt there were still rats in her ceiling.

(30)       She described the incident involving Brenda LaPlante.

 

(31)       In May 2017, she received a notice to allow workers into her unit. The two workers were Will and Kevin. G.M. attempted to contact Teddy to find out the purpose of the entry notice. She found he was not forthcoming. After some discussions she agreed to allow them and the pest control operators entry.

At other times, he had asked about her various vehicles which are issued for medical purposes. She filed a grievance against Ms. LaPlante and Mr. Zaghnoul. There were apparently eight notes on her car and she told the landlord to stop harassing her. She found things were moved around in her unit. She alleges she was called various names. It was at that point Cst. Nicholson recommended the camera.

 

Landlord’s Evidence

(32)       The landlord's evidence was presented in its entirety on January 22, 2018. At the conclusion of the December 20 hearing, G.M. indicated she would not be attending. In correspondence with the court, I made certain she was notified of her right to attend. In any event she would receive all correspondence.

(33)       Edwina Bishop, Teddy Zaghnoul and Angela (Angie) Craig, all gave evidence on behalf of Metcap Living.

(34)       Edwina Bishop presented a ledger for G.M.’s rental account. Ms. Bishop testified there were no arrears until Mr. Warham’s order. Currently, the Landlord is claiming $2583.15 including rent for January 2018.

(35)       Angela Craig is the property manager at [address removed]. She tendered into evidence a series of e-mails sent to her by G.M.. Their tone was intense to say the least. It is clear there was a great degree of animosity between the landlord and the tenant. She tendered into evidence a photograph indicating there was rice and seeds on G.M.’s balcony. She spoke with G.M. indicating that this would impede their efforts to deal with rodents. G.M.'s response was to say “thank you, now leave me alone”.

(36)       Ms. Craig testified to receiving an e-mail regarding rats from G.M. in May 2016. She requisitioned an order for treatment on October 24, 2016. She testified the first notification of rats and mice occurred on June 2016. Since G.M. left in December, there have been no further reports of any rat or mouse activity near her unit. As of the last day of the hearing, her unit was still vacant.

(37)       She testified that G.M. made it difficult to enter her unit. Only Kevin Homan was allowed entry. The others were not. The landlord's staff did their best to accommodate her. She disputes any claim for the leak in the ceiling damaging the table because there were no receipts or photographs to prove it.

(38)       Teddy Zaghnoul testified that he spoke with G.M. regarding parking near the building. She was issued various vehicles due to the treatment she was receiving. However, the vehicles were often different and the landlord did not know what type of vehicle she was driving. Therefore, they always assumed it was an outsider’s vehicle. They recommended some type of identification so the building staff would know which vehicle she was using.

 

(39)       Ms. Craig testified that Ms. LaPlante is the residential manager of all the buildings including [address removed]. It was her job to be in the buildings for cleaning, providing notices and collecting rent. It is common to see her in [address removed] on a daily basis. Ms. Craig indicated all business is transacted on behalf of the landlord at
[address removed]. Thus, all service vehicles, including pest control contractors, would go there to have their invoices approved and paid.

 

(40)       Richard Johnson is the branch manager at Able Pest Control. He has been in that position for two and a half years. He has worked in the pest control industry for seven years. He describes himself as fully licensed. He has completed industry and in-house training. He works regularly with the staff at MetCap. He testified that he took over the MetCap contract in 2017. I was impressed with his evidence.

(41)       He was aware of the rat issue in G.M.'s unit. He needed to prearrange visits. Usually those visits took place on Thursdays.

 

(42)       On February 18, 2017, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, Jeff Cameron, met with G.M. to go into the apartment and assess the situation. He took efforts not to damage her apartment to ensure he wore proper footwear by removing his boots and using shoe covers. He also left the screws in place for replacing covers each time he came to do work. His interaction regarding the progress was mostly with the resident managers although occasionally he spoke with G.M. as well. The relationship appeared to be cordial.

 

(43)       He described his observations as “not a high level of rodent activity by any means”. The building has a flat roof which he says makes it difficult for rats to run around. Typically, they are captured and removed using snap traps and bait traps. He found only one hole in the outside of the building which was sealed from the exterior. When dealing with exterior holes, the proper technique is to cover a hole with mesh and spray foam so mice and rats will not chew through them. Occasionally it is necessary to backfill in areas where rats are active to see if there are any rat holes being dug in the ground. He described that he saw nothing alarming from the bait boxes.

 

(44)       I asked Mr. Johnson if sealing the holes from the outside with concrete would trap rats inside of a building. Mr. Johnson indicated that rats always find a way out and can gnaw through various material including wood, gyprock and concrete. He described the removal of a juvenile rat. There were no consistent captures, such as an alpha male or breeding females. He also described several mice being removed. He did not notice any droppings or any damage related to mice in G.M.’s unit. He indicated the bait boxes were filled with rendonocide (poison). He indicated the noises she hears could have also been birds. Starlings have been known to enter holes in the roof of buildings. They were surprised to learn there was food and seeds outside as G.M. is characteristically clean and meticulous.

(45)       Mr. Zhouland found there were no droppings in G.M.'s unit. He believed the building has a strong pest control program. Bait boxes are replaced every 30 days. The boxes in G.M.'s unit were placed weekly.

 

(46)       Ms. Bishop testified there were holes in the basement. She submits Able fixed the problem in the summer of 2016.

Notice of Appeal

(47)       Both parties filed a Notice of Appeal. As I pointed out to both parties, a Notice of Appeal is not evidence. The statements contained in the Notice of Appeal must be supported by evidence. I should note that much of G.M.’s language in her Notice of Appeal is inflammatory and outrageous. It is in no way suitable for use in documents filed in a court of law.

The Law

(48)       The Residential Tenancies Act governs the practice of residential tenancies in Nova Scotia. Section 9 of that Act prescribes certain statutory conditions that are deemed to be in every lease and may not be altered. Statutory Condition 1 states the following:

“1. Condition of Premises - The landlord shall keep the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation during the tenancy and shall comply with any statutory enactment or law respecting
standards of health, safety or housing.

3. Good Behaviour - A landlord or tenant shall conduct himself in such a manner as not to interfere with the possession or occupancy of the tenant or of the landlord and the other tenants, respectively.”

(49)       The Small Claims Court on an appeal has the same powers as the Director of Residential Tenancies. These powers are set out in s. 17C of the Act:

Contents of order

17A  An order made by the Director may

               (a)    require a landlord or tenant to comply with a lease or an obligation pursuant to this Act;

(b)    require a landlord or tenant not to again breach a lease or an obligation pursuant to this Act;

(c)   require the landlord or tenant to make any repair or take any action to remedy a breach, and require the landlord or tenant to pay any reasonable expenses associated with the repair or action;
(d)   order compensation to be paid for any loss that has been suffered or will be suffered as a direct result of the breach;
(e)   terminate the tenancy on a date specified in the order and order the tenant to vacate the residential premises on that date;
(f)   determine the disposition of a security deposit;
(g)  direct that the tenant pay the rent in trust to the Director pending the performance by the landlord of any act the landlord is required by law to perform, and directing the disbursement of the rent;
(h)  require the payment of money by the landlord or the tenant;

    (i)   determine the appropriate level of a rent increase;
    (j)   require a landlord or tenant to comply with a mediated settlement;
    (k)  award to a successful party to an application the costs of an application fee paid to the Director, but no other costs associated with the application;
    (l)   set aside a notice to quit given by a landlord under subsection 10(6), (7), (7A) or (7B) or clause 10(8)(a), (b), or (c) or by a tenant under subsection 10F(1).

(50)       The section deals with specific breaches of the lease or the Residential Tenancies Act.

Findings

(51)       I have considered the evidence above and made certain findings of fact. It is clear from her evidence and her very extensive submissions to this court that G.M. is both well educated and articulate. She argues her case well. She is clearly comfortable in court. While I have sometimes found her positions not consistent with the evidence presented, she is quite capable of arguing a forceful and impressive position. Unfortunately, her argument is sometimes weakened considerably by her lack of perspective and use of inappropriate analogies and comparisons.

(52)       This matter, like all cases, requires an objective approach. I am only able to base my findings on the evidence presented and the application of the applicable law.

 

Harassment

(53)       In reviewing the evidence, I find G.M. and several of the employees of the landlord had an acrimonious and hostile landlord-tenant relationship. Each party attributes the difficulty to the other.

(54)       The law requires that I consider the conduct objectively in the context of the building. To paraphrase an ancient principle of evidence, she who alleges bears the onus. In this case, that is the tenant. G.M. must prove her claim on a balance of probabilities. The evidence shows that G.M. was in contact with the building staff. Eventually, she made it clear she only wished to deal with one employee. The employees and their contractors testified that they took care not to upset her. Essentially, their position is that they were just doing their job.

(55)       In order to find for G.M. on that point, she must adduce sufficient evidence to show their conduct was sufficiently inappropriate to justify an abatement. In other words, their conduct must show a violation of Statutory Condition 3, that it causes interference with her enjoyment of the property. At this point, I find there was significant acrimony between the parties. There was clearly mistrust on G.M.’s part. Without further proof they were doing more than their job, I am unable to make such a finding. By way of example, if it exists, such proof might have included: an unjustified entrance captured on camera, copies of letters left on her vehicle that are written or used inappropriately. These would need to be considered along with other cogent evidence to tip the balance of probabilities in G.M.’s favour. Notwithstanding the force of her argument, I find there is not sufficient evidence to order an abatement in rent on that ground.

Rodents

(56)       The second question is if the rats and mice justify an abatement. As is clear from her correspondence and documentation, G.M. has an aversion to rodents. These sensitivities ought to be taken into account when considering the complaints of tenants on those grounds. The Landlord argues they did all they could and exercised due diligence. I disagree. In any event, diligence is not the test to satisfy statutory condition 1. Perfection is not the standard either. The premises must be something less than one would expect. In my opinion, that is what happened in this case.

 

(57)       It has been proven in evidence there were indeed rats and mice in the building. near G.M.’s apartment. I will not dispute there may have been birds nesting in the roof, but there were mice and at least one rat. This was corroborated by the evidence of Richard Johnson of Able Pest Control.

(58)       G.M. was disappointed with the efforts of the HRM in not issuing an order to MetCap to address the rats. While Statutory Condition 1 requires adherence to all laws relating to housing, health and safety, it is not necessary to show a conviction for
violating a punitive statute or order from a public authority. It is sufficient to show the premises are not in good repair or fit for habitation.

(59)       The evidence of both G.M. and Angie Craig confirm G.M. contacted the landlord in May 2016 or June 2016 about possible rats. The evidence of Richard Johnson shows Able was contacted at that time to deal with the rodents. Unfortunately, their action was focused in the basement, perhaps in response to Ms. Beek’s complaint. No action for G.M.’s unit was taken until a requisition order was sent in November 2016. The first pest control contractor, Rent to Kill, was ineffective. Once Able Pest Control performed their work in that building it produced results.

(60)       This Court often hears complaints of rats and mice in units. As far as a complaint of incursion of rodents is concerned, this is relatively minor. Mr. Johnson reports removing one rat and two mice in 2017. No physical evidence of any rodents were found in the apartment. Instead, at least one of them lived in the ceiling. According to Mr. Johnson, most other rodents enter in the basement storage, if at all. There were none in this building. Like Mr. Warham, I find several months passed without adequate or any action. The Tenant is entitled to an abatement. Had there been evidence of rodent complaints and inaction by the Landlord since an earlier date, I would have had no hesitation in ordering an abatement for a longer period of time. Given that the rodents did not enter the residence, I find a 20% abatement excessive. I reduce that amount to 15% from the period from April 2016 to October 2017, and order an abatement of $1425, based on payments by G.M. of $500 per month for 19 months. As noted later in this decision, a portion of total rent is subsidized. G.M. ought not to receive payment for that portion without the appropriate authority being given notice and the opportunity to make submissions.

Other Claims

(61)       I find there was a leak. I am satisfied it caused damage to G.M.’s table. I award $75.

(62)       In her Notice of Appeal, G.M. claimed a number of other payments. Most of these items are not the type contemplated by the Residential Tenancies Act. The list and reasons for denial are set out below:

Amount Sought	Grounds	Reason
$600.00	Moving Expenses	This claim is similar in nature to the request for an abatement due to harassment, etc. by MetCap employees. The evidence is not sufficient. Had the evidence been sufficient, moving expenses to a new residence are not an appropriate award as they are a necessary and eventual part of most tenancies.
$515.00	Veterinary bill	This item has not been proven to have any connection to the tenancy. It is outside the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act.
$150.00	Gym membership	This item has not been proven to have any connection to the tenancy. It is outside the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act.
$8160.00	Medical expenses (colonics)	This item is outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.
$25.00	Car rental re: Residential Tenancies hearing	This is typically part of an award of costs. The Residential Tenancies Act limits costs to filing fees.
$15.94	USB for use at hearings.	This is typically part of an award of costs. The Residential Tenancies Act limits costs to filing fees.
$12.00	Stop payment on rent	Rent payments continued to be due and ought not to have been stopped.
$112.00	Security camera	This was purchased to gather evidence. If successful, this expense if awarded would typically form part of an award of costs. The Residential Tenancies Act limits costs to filing fees.
$33.78	Electricity	There is no evidence to substantiate this claim.
$685.75	Wages – to prepare for court	This typically is considered in an award of general damages which is beyond the jurisdiction of both the Small Claims Court Act and Residential Tenancies Act.
$17.10	Phone overages – phone use above plan	Phone charges, if awarded, are part of an award of costs. The Residential Tenancies Act limits costs to filing fees.

 

Rent

(63)       Under her lease, G.M. was paying $750.00 per month, which was raised to $761.00. She was responsible for $500 per month. The rest of the rent was subsidized. Mr. Warham’s order directed a payment of money to the Landlord. G.M. ceased paying rent while continuing to live there. Based on the documents she filed, perhaps she assumed she would be successful in seeking an award effectively declaring that she ought not to have paid rent at all for the remaining months.

(64)       In my opinion, such a substantial finding must take the form of an abatement. In other words, the difference between the amount of rent owed and paid is calculated, then the abatement is applied. G.M.’s method provides an elimination of all rent followed by a further reduction. In other words, double recovery for an amount exceeding the amount of rent paid or payable. The court cannot order recovery greater than 100%.

Relief Ordered

(65)       As a result of this finding, I award the following:

Rental Arrears Sept 2017 to Jan 2018:     $2500.00

Less: Abatement                                           ($1425.00)
Less: Damage to Table                               ($    75.00)
Less: Security Deposit                                 ($  351.94)

Total                                                               $   648.06

(66)       I disallow any other charges levied by the Landlord.

(67)       The Tenant’s appeal is dismissed. The Landlord’s claim is allowed in part. The Landlord shall have judgment against the Tenant in the amount of $648.06. Each party shall bear their own costs

(68)       A portion of G.M.’s rent was paid through a public housing authority. A 15% reduction results in an abatement of $714.15 from funds paid by that authority. It shall be for the parties and the housing authority to determine the apportionment of that entitlement and to whom it should be paid. If they wish, I will put this in the form of an order at a future date.

Dated at Halifax, NS,

on February 5, 2018;

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                            ______________________________

    Gregg W. Knudsen, Adjudicator

           

                        Original:          Court File

                        Copy:              Landlord(s)
Copy:              Tenant(s)