Supreme Court

Yellowknife Housing Authority v. Delorme, 2003 NWTSC 47
Date: 20030827
Docket: S-0001-CV-2003000128

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER between the YELLOWKNIFE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Applicant, and LOUISE DELORME


AND IN THE MATTER of the Residential Tenancies Act, R.S.N.W.T., 1988, Chapter R-5 (“the Act”)


AND IN THE MATTER of a Hearing before, HAL LOGSDON, Rental Officer, regarding the rental premises at YELLOWKNIFE, NT


BETWEEN:

YELLOWKNIFE HOUSING AUTHORITY,

      Applicant/Landlord


- and-


LOUISE DELORME

      Respondent/Tenant


Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Decision by The Honourable Justice J.E. Richard, at Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on June 20th, A.D. 2003.


APPEARANCES:

Mr. A. von Kursell:  Counsel for the Applicant/Landlord

Ms. K. Payne:   Counsel for the Respondent/Tenant


THE COURT:   Ms. Delorme has appealed the decision of the Rental Officer under the Residential Tenancies Act. That decision was made by the Rental Officer on December 12th of last year.

No grounds of appeal are formally stated in the Notice of Appeal. However, I glean from the affidavit which Ms. Delorme has filed in support of the appeal that (a), she disagrees with the Rental Officer's decision to terminate the tenancy; and (b), she says that she did not receive proper notice of the December 12th hearing.

I find, after consideration, that there is no merit in this appeal. The fact that Ms. Delorme disagrees with the Rental Officer's decision is an insufficient reason to set aside that decision by an appeal in this court.

In the circumstances of this case, I find that it was not unreasonable for the Rental Officer to proceed with the hearing in Ms. Delorme's absence on December 12th.

The background of this case must be considered for a full understanding of the context of the December 12th hearing. First of all, it should be remembered that these landlord/tenant disputes, as I have stated, are intended by the Legislature to be dealt with in a summary fashion before a Rental Officer rather than in the courts.

[Page 1]

Ms. Delorme and her landlord were before the Rental Officer in November, 2000 because of her failure to pay rent as provided and her rental arrears. The Rental Officer did not order termination of the lease at that time, but allowed Ms. Delorme to pay her rental arrears in installments over a period of time, a period of months.

In 2002, Ms. Delorme was again in a situation where her rent was seriously in arrears. In September, 2002 she signed an agreement with her landlord promising to make monthly installments on her rental arrears and agreeing that if she failed to make the payments, the landlord would be going back to the Rental Officer to have the tenancy terminated. She failed to make the agreed payments, and so the landlord filed an application with the Rental Officer for termination of the tenancy. All of this appears from the record which is before this Court.

The record also shows that a copy of the application, this is the landlord's application, was served on Ms. Delorme's residence on November 6th. The Rental Officer set the hearing date for December 12th and notice of the hearing was served on Ms. Delorme's residence by leaving a copy with her 15 or 16-year-old son.

Ms. Delorme now says that her son never gave the notice to her. There is no evidence of Ms. Delorme

[Page 2]

making any inquiries with the Rental Officer or her landlord regarding the application or the hearing of the application either before December 12th or subsequently.

I conclude that Ms. Delorme has not been diligent in her dealings with her landlord or the office of the Rental Officer, and, accordingly, it is difficult to have any sympathy with her when she complains that she has not been treated fairly. On the contrary, from the record it appears to the Court that she has been treated fairly by both her landlord and the Rental Officer.

In the particular circumstances of this case, in my view it was open to the Rental Officer to determine that Ms. Delorme, the tenant, had received adequate notice of the hearing. I find, therefore, that there is no reason to set aside the decision of the Rental Officer, and this appeal is dismissed. The stay of the Rental Officer's decision is lifted. The decision of Justice Vertes of April 25th on file number 2003/128 is in effect. That means that Ms. Delorme is to vacate the premises forthwith. Otherwise, the Sheriff will evict her.

Now, that is the Court's ruling, and if push comes to shove, that is what is going to have to happen. I would hope that you people can leave here today and achieve the vacation of the premises without involving

[Page 3]

the Sheriff, but, as counsel know, that is what has to happen. The landlord will have its costs of this appeal hearing, which I hereby set at $250 inclusive of disbursements.

Now, is there anything further on this matter, counsel?

MS. PAYNE:   No, sir.

MR. VON KURSELL:  No, sir.

THE COURT:   Thank you.

(AT WHICH TIME THE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)


Certified to be a true and accurate transcript pursuant to Rules 723 and 724 of the Supreme Court Rules.


Jill MacDonald, CSR(A), RPR
Court Reporter

[Page 4]