QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2010 SKQB 330 Date: 2010 09 14 Docket: Q.B.G. 1576/2010 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: JOSEPH KOBIALKO and KEITHA BITTERNOSE Counsel: Joseph Kobialko appearing on his own behalf No on appearing for the respondent JUDGMENT DAWSON J. September 14, 2010 [1] Joseph Kobialko (the "landlord"), appeals from a decision of a Hearing Officer of the Office of Residential Tenancies, which decision ordered the landlord to pay to Keitha Bitternose (the “tenant”) the sum of $787.13, of which $562.13 represents utilities that the Hearing Officer found the tenant had overpaid and $225.00 which was ordered to be paid as abatement of rent for the tenant’s inconvenience of having to deal with the caretaker’s threats of the water being turned off and for repeated notes from the caretakers. [2] The landlord’s ground of appeal is as follows: Me as the Landlord, not responsible to pay the utilities tenant is to pay the utilities; if on social assistance, social services to pay for it. If agreeded [sic] to pay the utilities, than it would have been added to the rent. had this property for about 30 years and haven’t paid the tenant’s utilities. [3] Section 72 of The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.S. 2006, c. R-22.0001 provides the right of appeal from the decision of hearing officer. Section 72(1) states: 72(1) Any person who is aggrieved by decision or order of hearing officer may appeal the decision or order on question of law or of jurisdiction to judge of the Court of Queen's Bench within 30 days after the date of the decision or order. [4] In this type of appeal, the court is statutorily restricted to addressing questions of law or of jurisdiction. This Court may not revisit the questions or issues of fact determined by the Hearing Officer. This appellate function means that where there is some relevant evidence to support finding of fact, that finding may not be disturbed on appeal. Only when there is no relevant supporting evidence is the line between valid non-appealable finding of fact and invalid appealable finding crossed. (See Farm Credit Corp. v. Strelioff (1990), 1990 CanLII 7030 (SK CA), 87 Sask.R. 52 (Sask.C.A.) at para. 8-15, [1990] W.W.R. 742; Reich v. Lohse (1994), 1994 CanLII 4691 (SK CA), 123 Sask.R. 114 (Sask. C.A.), 117 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Rehaume v. Dodd 2003 SKQB 356 (Sask. Q.B.) (CanLII), [2003] S.J. No. 524 (QL); Jamieson v. Adams, 2004 SKQB 212 (CanLII), [2004] S.J. No. 433 (QL) (Sask. Q.B.)) [5] The grounds set out in the landlord's appeal relate to the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. The landlord's appeal relates to the Hearing Officer's finding of facts related to the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of one-half of the utilities. [6] The landlord asserts that the Hearing Officer was wrong in her decision on the facts. In essence, the landlord asserts that the Hearing Officer did not find the facts as he suggested that he should have. [7] It is open to the Hearing Officer to accept some of the evidence of particular witness and not other evidence of that witness. The Hearing Officer is not bound to accept all of the evidence told to her by any witness. As well, the Hearing Officer has the authority to determine what is credible and trustworthy evidence. It is open to the Hearing Officer to find facts and come to conclusions as long as there was evidence before her upon which she based those findings. [8] In this case, there was evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual decision and all of her findings. It is not open to this Court to overturn those findings of fact. The appellant's grounds of appeal are based on wrongful factual conclusions, which are not questions of law and this Court has no jurisdiction to overturn those findings. [9] The appeal is therefore dismissed on these grounds. J. C. L. DAWSON
The applicant landlord appeals from a decision of the hearing officer of the Residential Tenancies Office, which ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $787.13. Of this amount, $562.13 represents utilities that the tenant had overpaid. The landlord states that he never agreed to pay the utilities.HELD: Pursuant to s. 72 of The residential Tenancies Act, the court is restricted to addressing questions of law or jurisdiction. The landlord's appeal relates to findings of fact made by the hearing officer. There was evidence to support the hearing officer's factual decision and all of her findings. It is not open to this court to overturn those findings of fact. The appeal is dismissed.