J. 2003 SKQB 262 Q.B.G. A.D. 2003 No. 73 J.C. W. IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF WEYBURN IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 49(1) OF THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT and INGRID BJORK and THE OFFICE OF THE RENTALSMAN RESPONDENT M. Dean Brown for the appellant Ingrid Bjork, self-represented FIAT WILSON J. June 5, 2003 [1] This is an appeal by Paul Maley, the tenant, from the decision of the Rentalsman dated April 9, 2003. Mr. Maley was tenant at 132 Laurier Road in the Town of Radville, home which he rented from the landlord, Ingrid Bjork. After Mr. Maley vacated the home the landlord made application pursuant to s. 47 of The Residential Tenancies Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. R-22, as am., for the sum of $3,746.76 for rent loss, cleaning costs, damages to the premises and utilities which were not paid. After hearing held on February 27, 2003 at Weyburn, Saskatchewan, the Rentalsman made an order requiring the tenant to pay the total sum of $2,930.01 to the landlord. [2] The grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal filed by the tenant are as follows: a) That the Rentalsman’s decision is patently unreasonable—unsupportable by the facts—and therefore the Deputy Rentalsman erred in law; andb) That the Rentalsman’s decision was also an error of law in denying natural justice and due process by proceeding with insufficient notice of the particulars of the claim to allow the tenant to prepare a full and proper defence. [3] Prior to the hearing before the Rentalsman, the tenant was served with hearing notice. The landlord’s claim was set out in the hearing notice. The landlord’s claim included, inter alia, claim for cleaning in the sum of $2,241.45. On the form which is utilized as hearing notice there is specific provision for “cleaning” claim and the form received by Mr. Maley indicated the following as description of the cleaning claim: [H]ouse was very filthy—a real pig pen—was cleaned from top to bottom, painted kitchen. have before after pictures. Three people worked hours hours to get it clean. [4] At the appeal hearing Mr. Maley took the position that the notice he received of the cleaning claim as set out on the hearing notice was inadequate and, that when he attended for the hearing before the Rentalsman he was not prepared to refute the amount of the cleaning claim. Further, he argued he was not aware that he could ask for an adjournment to present further evidence. As result he takes the position that there was denial of natural justice and the Rentalsman’s decision should be overturned. [5] Mr. Maley referred this Court to the decision of Laing J. in Michayluk v. Menke Holdings Ltd.(1998), 1998 CanLII 13729 (SK QB), 169 Sask. R. 38 (Q.B.). However, it is my view that the Michayluk case can be clearly distinguished from the case before the Court. In Michayluk the tenant was served with notice of claim stating: “Damages to premises: Brief itemized description”—“Estimate—$1,500.00”. The form did not identify the alleged damage, or breakdown the sum of $1,500.00. Further, at the hearing of the matter, and without prior notice to the tenant, the landlord applied to amend its claim to total of $3,764.46 and provided written particulars of the expanded claim. The amendment was allowed by the Rentalsman. Laing J. concluded that because the notice of claim provided an inadequate description of the claim for damages and, further, the amendment to the claim was allowed at the hearing without prior notice, the rules of natural justice had not been met. [6] The hearing notice received by Mr. Maley in this case set out the specific amount for cleaning that the landlord was requesting, that is, the sum of $2,241.45. There was no attempt by the landlord to amend this claim at the hearing of this matter before the Rentalsman. Further, although the description of the cleaning required did not specifically state how many hours of cleaning was done and at what hourly rate it was done, it was, in my view, sufficient to alert the tenant that the cleaning claim was for hours of work as well as for painting. Mr. Maley could, if he had chosen to do so, have sought out skilled house cleaner prior to the hearing by the Rentalsman and had that person attend with him to consider the evidence that was going to be presented by the landlord (including the pictures that Mr. Maley was aware would be shown).  It is, therefore, my view that Mr. Maley was not denied natural justice and due process in this matter. [7] Finally, I cannot find that the Rentalsman’s decision is patently unreasonable as being unsupportable by the facts. The Rentalsman made the decision in this matter after having reviewed the pictures filed by the landlord, the repair bills filed by the landlord, and the statements of the house cleaners who indicated the hours worked and the hourly rate utilized. The Rentalsman reached a decision based on all the evidence and came to a conclusion that was not patently unreasonable given that evidence. [8] The appeal of Mr. Maley herein is dismissed.
FIAT. After the tenant vacated the home, the landlord, pursuant to Residential Tenancies Act s.47, sought $3,746.76 for rent loss, cleaning, damage to the premises and unpaid utilities. The Rentalsman's order required the tenant to pay $2,930.01. The tenant appealed on the grounds the Rentalsman erred in law, as the decision was patently unreasonable as unsupportable by the facts; there was a denial of natural justice and due process because there was insufficient notice of particulars of the cleaning claim to allow the tenant to prepare a full and proper defence. The tenant argued there was a denial of natural justice and the decision should be overturned because he was not aware he could ask for an adjournment to present further evidence. HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The tenant was not denied natural justice or due process. While the description of cleaning did not specifically state the number of hours or hourly rate, it was sufficient to alert the tenant that it was for hours of work as well as for painting. The Rentalsman's decision, made after reviewing pictures, repair bills and the statements of house cleaners, who indicated the hours worked and their hourly rate, was not patently unreasonable as being unsupportable by the evidence.