30.12.2014 Views

FE Magazine 2009 No. 5 Sep-Oct - FRPO

FE Magazine 2009 No. 5 Sep-Oct - FRPO

FE Magazine 2009 No. 5 Sep-Oct - FRPO

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Fair Exchange • <strong>Sep</strong>tember / <strong>Oct</strong>ober <strong>2009</strong><br />

I’d rather bet on red or black at a casino<br />

than try to guess how any given<br />

Member might decide an issue<br />

described above on any given day.<br />

Resulting from all this confusion and<br />

inconsistency is the mess we find ourselves<br />

in today. Parties shaking their<br />

heads in wonderment as their matters<br />

are dismissed for reasons they can’t<br />

fathom, too many adjournments<br />

causing delay, too many reviews and<br />

appeals, too many highly contested<br />

applications with complex issues<br />

causing delay and depleting Board<br />

resources, and a shocking growth in<br />

tenant claims raised either by filing a<br />

paper application, or simply raised<br />

without notice at a rent hearing thanks<br />

to s.82.<br />

The current government’s addition<br />

of s.82 acts as an invitation to tenants<br />

who fear that they will be homeless<br />

and who can’t pay the rent. It is just<br />

too easy to raise an issue that’s trivial<br />

and blow it out of proportion, or to<br />

manufacture an issue willfully and<br />

compound the problem by refusing<br />

the landlord entry to repair it.<br />

Relying on the honesty and pure<br />

motives of human beings wrapped<br />

up in litigation is just not good<br />

public policy.<br />

But now add in the impending<br />

increase to the monetary jurisdiction<br />

at the Board from $10,000 to $25,000<br />

which will take place on January 1 st ,<br />

2010. Under the Residential Tenancies<br />

Act, the Board’s jurisdiction will<br />

increase by operation of law effective<br />

that same day. Into this brew, we<br />

throw in for good measure:<br />

• A couple of recent decisions at<br />

Divisional Court and the Court of<br />

Appeal regarding entry and rent<br />

increases that are remarkable;<br />

• Another Divisional Court decision<br />

that allows tenants to be<br />

compensated at the Board for<br />

special and general damages in<br />

tort or in contract;<br />

• Another very recent Divisional<br />

Court decision seemingly erasing<br />

limitation periods for tenant<br />

claims and;<br />

• A faltering economy with<br />

employment not recovering<br />

with an ending recession;<br />

And voilà we have the ideal recipe to<br />

create the perfect storm.<br />

There are a number of implications<br />

for the Ministry, and my insiders<br />

suggest that nothing is being done to<br />

prepare. As it stands, the hearing<br />

blocks are too full and the schedule<br />

too crowded to allow adjudicators<br />

time to properly hear complex<br />

matters. When a tenant is making a<br />

claim for $10,000, and soon $25,000,<br />

the landlord or its agent has an obligation<br />

to vigorously defend the<br />

claim and to hold the tenant to strict<br />

proof of same. The current system,<br />

almost unchanged from 1997,<br />

doesn’t permit this. Some Members<br />

baulk when you try to present and<br />

discuss case law or thoroughly<br />

examine a witness. It wouldn’t be<br />

right at the Small Claims Court, and<br />

it’s not right at the Landlord and<br />

Tenant Board. The Board needs to<br />

consider a number of fixes in order<br />

to prevent the system from falling<br />

further into disarray:<br />

1. Revise the disclosure rules to<br />

mirror those in the Small Claims<br />

Courts. Respondents, landlords<br />

or tenants, should have a right to<br />

be aware of the case against them<br />

before they arrive at a hearing.<br />

2. Add adjudicators and hearing<br />

locations if necessary, and only<br />

appoint lawyers as the issues have<br />

become too complex.<br />

3. Consider revising the Rules about<br />

adjournments, costs and payments<br />

into the Board.<br />

4. Consider bringing back default<br />

judgments that were eliminated<br />

under the Residential Tenancies<br />

Act, perhaps extending the<br />

dispute period to 10 days in order<br />

to free up time for the hearing of<br />

other applications.<br />

5. A legislative change to s.82, scrapping<br />

it and requiring tenants to<br />

file applications, serve and disclose<br />

prior to the hearing of the<br />

landlord’s application, or at very<br />

least a requirement for notice and<br />

disclosure prior to the hearing.<br />

6. Put out real stats for the<br />

Minister and the industry,<br />

showing the average time from<br />

the filing of different types of<br />

applications, to the date the<br />

order is finally issued. The<br />

current stat which reveals only<br />

the time from application to the<br />

first appearance, is meaningless,<br />

masks the problem and frankly<br />

is deceptive.<br />

7. We need some common-sense<br />

clarifications and amendments to<br />

the legislation NOW, to fill some<br />

of the gaps and resolve some of<br />

the existing confusion. F<br />

26

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!