J. Q.B. A.D. 1994 J.C.S. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 49(1) OF THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES BETWEEN: SAMUAL JAMES POPOFF and DAN CHEVELDAYOFF and THE OFFICE OF THE RENTALSMAN RESPONDENT B. J. Kot for the appellant D. E. Labach for the respondent JUDGMENT GEREIN J. March 31, 1994 This is an appeal from a decision of the Rentalsmanordering that a writ of possession issue in respect topremises municipally described as 201 - 1st Street West inBlaine Lake, Saskatchewan. The appellant is tenant in residential premises owned by the respondent. On December 28, 1993, the appellant was served with notice to deliver up the premises described as 201 1st Street West, in the Town of Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan. When this did not produce the desired result, the appellant was served with notice of hearing to be held at the Office of the Rentalsman on February 9, 1994. Theappellant did not attend and in his absence a writ ofpossession was authorized in respect to the above describedpremises. It was subsequently ascertained by the deputy sheriff that the proper municipal address of the subject premises, which are located on corner lot, is 201 3rd Avenue West, Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan, although 201 1st Street West is listed in the telephone directory. When thiswas brought to the attention of the Rentalsman the writ ofpossession was amended to include the second address. Thiswas done without notice to the appellant. It is now argued on behalf of the appellant that the notice to vacate referred to the wrong premises as did the original writ of possession and that this deficiency vitiates the entire proceedings. It is further argued that the deficiency could not be corrected unilaterally by the Rentalsman without notice to the appellant. Section 23(1)(b) of The Residential Tenancies Act, S.S., c. R-22 provides: 23(1) notice of termination of tenancy agreement by landlord or tenant shall be in writing and shall: (b) identify the premises in respect of which the notice is given; The Act does not stipulate how the premises are to be identified and therefore any of number of methods would be in compliance with the section. However, whatever method is adopted, at minimum, it must accurately identify the premises. If this is not done, then there is non-compliancewith a mandatory section of the Act. What follows is that the notice to vacate is invalid and whatever follows thereupon is equally invalid. In the instant case, the municipal records disclose that the correct address is 201 3rd Avenue West. That was not the address contained in the notice to vacate. Accordingly, the Rentalsman had no jurisdiction to make an order in respect to premises not identified in that notice. In addition, the Rentalsman had no jurisdiction to amend the original order without notice to the appellant. accept that the appellant is being obstructionist, but he is entitled to insist upon compliance with the legislation, whatever his motive might be. However, considering the circumstances and the past conduct of the appellant am not prepared to exercise my discretion in his favour in respect to costs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order ofthe Rentalsman and the consequent writ of possession arequashed. There will be no costs of the appeal.
A notice to vacate rented premises contained an erroneous address. The Rentalsman granted a writ of possession and after the issuance of the writ, amended the writ to correct the address without notice to the tenant. The tenant appealed. HELD: Appeal allowed. There had not been compliance with s. 23(1)(b) of the Act. The notice to vacate was therefore ineffective and the consequent writ of possession was quashed. Given the tenant's obstructionist tactics he was denied his costs of the appeal.