Provencher v. Bennett

Provencher v. Bennett

The appeal is dismissed because the landlord failed to file the required security deposit claim and did not bring a counterclaim for damages before the Residential Tenancy Officer as required by s.12(6)(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act; an appeal court cannot entertain claims not properly before the tribunal, so the Director's order requiring return of the deposit is correct and must be upheld.

Citation
2014 NSSM 25
Parties
Landlord (appellant): Debbie Provencher; Tenant (respondent): Karinda Bennett
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Appeal Heard April 29, 2014; Decision Rendered April 30, 2014
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of the Director of Residential Tenancies upheld
Legal Topics
Security Deposit, Counterclaim, Appeal Jurisdiction, Procedural Default
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Civil Procedure Security Deposit Counterclaim Appeal Jurisdiction Procedural Default

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Debbie Provencher

Landlord (appellant)

Karinda Bennett

Tenant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Appeal Heard April 29, 2014; Decision Rendered April 30, 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord may pursue damage claims on appeal that were not raised before the Residential Tenancy Officer
  2. 2 Whether the landlord failed to comply with the Residential Tenancies Act requirements for filing a security deposit claim under s.12(6)(7)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the landlord failed to file the required security deposit claim and did not bring a counterclaim for damages before the Residential Tenancy Officer as required by s.12(6)(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act; an appeal court cannot entertain claims not properly before the tribunal, so the Director's order requiring return of the deposit is correct and must be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of the Director of Residential Tenancies upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Director's order requiring the landlord to return the $300.00 security deposit to the tenant is upheld.