Supreme Court

Robinson v. Hay River Mobile Park Ltd., 2000 NWTSC 9

Date:
Docket:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

BETWEEN:

DIANE ROBINSON

Appellant

-and-

HAY RIVER MOBILE HOME PARK LTD.

Respondent

MEMORANDUM OF JUDGMENT


[1] This is an appeal of an order issued by the Rental Officer on December 21, 1999.

[2] The appellant is the tenant named in a tenancy agreement made in 1993 for a trailer lot in the respondent landlord s mobile home park.  The appellant is no longer living there, however, since the trailer on the lot is occupied by Mr. Harvey Werner.  He pays the rent.  He filed this appeal and appeared, both before the Rental Officer and before me in this court on this appeal, as the  representative  of the named appellant.

[3] The Originating Notice filed in this court as the notice of appeal set February 4th, 2000, at 10:00 A.M., as the date and time of the hearing.  When the matter was called at that time no one was present for the respondent.  Mr. Werner advised me that the Originating Notice had been served on the landlord in accordance with the requirements of the appeal procedures set out in the Residential Tenancies Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c.R-5.    Section 87(2) of that Act requires that a notice of the appeal be served not later than 7 days before the appeal.  Mr. Werner undertook to file a formal affidavit verifying service on the respondent.  On the basis of that undertaking, and because Mr. Werner had travelled from Hay River to Yellowknife for the hearing, I agreed, at his request, to hear his submissions.  At the conclusion of those submissions I reserved judgment pending the filing of the affidavit of service.

[4] I was also informed that the Rental Officer had forwarded a copy of the  Record  prepared for this appeal to the respondent.  That contained a copy of the notice of the hearing date.  Apparently, however, the respondent received the  Record  only on January 31st, thereby not in compliance with the seven-day notice requirement.

[5] Shortly after the hearing, Mr. Werner advised the Clerk of the Court that he could not provide verification of service on the respondent.  He asked that the appeal be rescheduled for a new hearing so he could properly serve the respondent.  After careful consideration I have decided that there is no point in rescheduling this appeal.  A new hearing would accomplish nothing because there is nothing I need to hear from the respondent.  This appeal is groundless.  It will be dismissed.

[6] I do not think that this court s time (and the taxpayers  money) should be consumed by a pointless exercise.  Mr. Werner has made all his arguments.  I do not need to hear from the respondent to conclude that they are devoid of merit.  Hence my decision to not reschedule a hearing.

[7] I am reminded of certain comments made in an English House of Lords case called Ashmore v. Corporation of Lloyd s, a judgment delivered on April 1, 1992, at paragraph 4;

... in any trial court it is the trial judge who has control of the proceedings.  It is part of his duty to identify the crucial issues and to see they are tried as expeditiously and as inexpensively as possible... Litigants are not entitled to the uncontrolled use of a trial judge s time.  Other litigants await their turn.  Litigants are only entitled to so much of the trial judge s time as is necessary for the proper determination of the relevant issues.

These comments are equally appropriate on this appeal.


[8] The appeal is from an order directing the appellant to pay rental arrears of $307.54, directing payment of rent for the months of December, 1999, January and February, 2000, prior to the end of each of those months, and terminating the tenancy agreement as of March 1, 2000.  The appeal turns on the contention that the monthly rent is $170.00 (the amount stipulated in the tenancy agreement).  The landlord claimed rent at $200.00 per month.

[9] There have been numerous hearings before the Rental Officer relating to this tenancy.  The appellant argues that at one of those hearings, the one resulting in a decision dated February 16, 1999, the Rental Officer confirmed that the rent was $170.00.  It is the appellant s contention that if the landlord wanted to increase the rent it should have appealed that order to this court.  In my opinion, this argument misinterprets the February order and betrays a lack of understanding of subsequent orders.

[10] The February hearing did not deal with the amount of rent payable.  It dealt with a question as to when, in each month, the rent was due.  The issue of the correct amount of rent was addressed at another hearing, this one resulting in an order dated July 5, 1999.  At that time, the Rental Officer accepted evidence that the landlord had properly increased the rent, on due notice, to $200.00 per month in 1994.  The Rental Officer also expressly rejected the appellant s contention that no notice of the rent increase had been served on the appellant.  In the decision under appeal here, the Rental Officer confirmed that once again.  He wrote (at page 3 of his reasons):  In my opinion, the issue of the amount of lawful rent was reviewed and determined to be $200/month at the June 25, 1999, hearing.  Nothing has occurred since that date to alter the amount of legal rent.   The rent has therefore been decisively declared to be $200.00 on at least two occasions.  Nothing suggests otherwise.  An appeal of the February order would have been irrelevant to this point.

[11] With respect to the calculation of the arrears, that is something within the fact-finding function of the Rental Officer.  Nothing has been shown to me to think that there was some misapprehension of the evidence on his part.

[12] Finally, the appellant (or I should say Mr. Werner) contends that the respondent was using the Rental Officer proceedings to harass him.  He may feel harassed but he has chosen to consistently ignore what should be obvious from previous orders.  The respondent has no alternative, it seems to me, but to keep going back to the Rental Officer since that is what the legislation says a landlord should do.



[13] The appeal is therefore dismissed.  There will be no costs.





                        J. Z. Vertes
           J.S.C.


Dated at Yellowknife, NT
this 8th day of February, 2000.


To: Mr. Harvey Werner
          1961 Woodland Drive
          Hay River, NT  XOE OR8

 Hay River Mobile Home Park Ltd.
 25 Studney Drive
 Hay River, NT  XOE OR6