J. Q.B. A.D. 2000 No. 57 J.C. S.C. IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SWIFT CURRENT BETWEEN: AL FUCHS operating in the name and style of Formula Real Estate Service and DANNA KOETHLER and SASKATCHEWAN JUSTICE, THE OFFICE OF THE RENTALSMAN RESPONDENTS Al Fuchs appeared in person Jacob (Jack) R. Hoffart for the respondent, Danna Koethler JUDGMENT McLELLAN J. May 5, 2000 [1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Deputy Rentalsman ordering the landlord, Bradley Calvin Dafoe/Formula 1 Real Estate Service/Al Fuchs, to pay the sum of $3,414.50 to the respondent, Danna Koethler. [2] The notice of appeal sets forth the following grounds of appeal: THIS APPEAL IS BROUGHT to have determined the following question of law: The responsibility of representative at law for the obligations of landlord. The Rentalsman’s order incorrectly includes and orders the appellant, representative of the landlord to be jointly financially responsible for this award. The appellant was not party to the hearing in his own name but in his capacity as representative of the landlord and therefore has no responsibility for the financial obligations of the landlord. We respectfully request the appellant be removed from Rentalsman’s order. AND- THIS APPEAL IS BROUGHT to have determined the following question respecting the Jurisdiction of the Rentalsman:1. To impose an award on the appellant whose [sic] was acting not in his own right but as a representative for a landlord. 2. To impose an award on an appellant who had not received notice that he was to be a named party at a hearing where an award could be made against him. 3. To impose an award against an appellant who was unable to prepare and present a defence on his own behalf. [3] The decision indicates that Mr. Dafoe was the landlord and the appellant was his authorized agent. [4] The material received from the Rentalsman clearly shows that the appellant received notice that he was named as a party. In fact, in the hearing notice, Formula 1 Real Estate, Al Fuchs is the only party named as landlord. There is no mention of Mr. Dafoe. [5] The hearing notice also sets forth that the order requested is for the landlord to pay damages of $8,779.94. An itemized list of the damages claimed was attached to the notice. [6] There is no merit to the suggestion by the appellant that he did not receive notice of hearing where an award could be made against him. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant was unable to prepare and present a defence on his own behalf. [7] The only question left for determination is whether an agent of the landlord may be held liable for damages to tenant. [8] An appeal from the Rentalsman to this Court can only be brought on question of law. [9] The Residential Tenancies Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. R-22 (the “Act”) provides the Rentalsman with the legislative authority to hold hearing into dispute between landlord and tenant. After the hearing the Rentalsman may issue an order for damages. Section 47(1) provides as follows: 47(1) An application for an order respecting any residential tenancy dispute may be made: (a) to the Rentalsman, in the form and manner that the Rentalsman may direct .... (2) On receiving an application pursuant to clause (1)(a) or determining pursuant to subsection (1.2) that hearing should be held, the Rentalsman: ... (c) after holding the hearing pursuant to clause (b), may make any order the Rentalsman considers just and equitable in the circumstances including an order: ... (iii) requiring the payment of damages .... [10] The definition section contained in the Act provides the following definition of landlord: In this Act: ... (d) “landlord” means person who grants to person the exclusive right of tenancy of residential premises and includes: (i) an agent or personal or legal representative of, or any other person acting on behalf of, landlord .... [Emphasis added] [11] The definition contained in s. 2(d)(ii) was considered by Smith J. in Lachance v. Auzano Asset Management Inc. et al. (1999), 1999 SKQB (CanLII), 184 Sask. R. 107 (Q.B.), where she considered the issue now before me. In that case Smith J. held at para. [18] am satisfied that this definition is determinative of this point, against the appellant. This conclusion is confirmed by the consideration that the Act is intended to provide an informal and efficient procedure for determining disputes between landlords and tenants, and that this goal is facilitated by permitting such individuals as property managers to assume the role and status of landlords for the purpose of invoking the procedures and remedies of the Act.... agree with the conclusion reached by Smith J. [12] In the result, there is no error of law by the Deputy Rentalsman. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
An appeal from a decision of the Deputy Rentalsman ordering the landlord to pay $3,414.50 to the tenant. In issue was the jurisdiction of the Deputy Rentalsman to impose an award on the appellant who was acting as a representative for the landlord and not in his own right and who had not received notice that he was to be a named party at a hearing where an award could be made against him and who was unable to prepare and present a defence on his own behalf. HELD: The appeal was dismissed. 1)The material clearly showed the appellant received notice that he was named as a party and in fact was the only party named as landlord. An itemized list of the damages claimed was attached to the notice. There was nothing to indicate he was unable to prepare and present a defence. 2)There was no error of law. The definition contained in s.2(d)(ii) was considered in Lachance v. Auzano Asset which held s.2(d)(ii) was determinative of the issue. The Act is intended to provide an informal and efficient procedure for determining landlord and tenant disputes. This goal is facilitated by permitting such individuals as property managers to assume the role and status of landlords (Lachance).