J. QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2009 SKQB 317 Date: 2009 07 30 Docket: Q.B.G. No. 1107/09 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: PAUL MATTHEW SINNETT and WESTERN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE and THE OFFICE OF THE RENTALSMAN Counsel: Paul Matthew Sinnett for himself Kathryn Deveau for Western Christian College JUDGMENT Dawson J. July 30, 2009 [1] This is an appeal by Paul Matthew Sinnett, the tenant, pursuant to s. 72 of The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, R.S.S. 2006, c. R-22.0001 (the “Act”) from a decision of a hearing officer appointed under the Act, who, pursuant to ss. 58, 68 and 70 of the Act, ordered that the landlord be given possession of the tenant’s rental unit and that a writ of possession be issued to place the landlord in possession of the rental unit. [2] In this case, the landlord, Western Christian College, made an application pursuant to ss. 68(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, for an order for possession of the tenant’s rental unit. The grounds for the application were that the tenant had unreasonably disturbed other tenants within the meaning of ss. 68(2)(a)(i) of the Act. [3] The tenant’s notice of appeal set out the following: Evidence that the police were called for the Landlord. That my doctor thinks or the Rentalsman claims I’m mentally ill. That I’m evicted from the noise and trouble started from the Landlord. [4] The material available for review is limited to the notice of appeal from the decision of the hearing officer filed by the appellant, the documents filed by the hearing officer, and the decision of the hearing officer. [5] Section 72 of the Act 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. [6] 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 not 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; Reich v. Lohse (1994), 1994 CanLII 4691 (SK CA), 123 Sask R. 114 (Sask. C.A.); Rehaume v. Dodd, 2003 SKQB 356 (CanLII), [2003] S.J. No. 524 (Sask. Q.B.); Jamieson v. Adams, 2004 SKQB 212 (CanLII), [2004] S.J. No. 433, 132 A.C.W.S. (3d) 779 (Sask. Q.B.)) [7] The tenant has not raised any true issue as to the jurisdiction of the hearing. In my view, the hearing officer had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in issue. [8] The notice of appeal and arguments presented by the tenant all relate to the facts as found by the hearing officer. They contain no error of law. There were facts before the hearing officer to support his finding that the tenant had significantly disturbed other tenants. There was ample evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision on all of his findings of fact. It is not open to me to overturn her findings of fact. [9] The appeal is therefore dismissed. J. C. L. DAWSON
This is an appeal by the tenant, pursuant to s. 72 of the Residential Tenancies Act from a decision of the hearing officer appointed under the Act, who, pursuant to ss. 58, 68, and 70 of the Act, ordered that the landlord be given possession of the tenant's rental unit and that a writ of possession be issued to place the landlords in possession of the rental unit. HELD: The Court reviewed the facts and found the tenant had not raised any true issues as to the jurisdiction of the hearing. It was the Court's view that the hearing officer had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in issue. The notice of appeal and arguments presented by the tenant all relate to the facts as found by the hearing officer and contain no error of law. There were facts before the hearing officer to support his finding that the tenant had significantly disturbed other tenants. Further, the Court found there was ample evidence to support the hearing officer's decision on all his findings of fact. Appeal dismissed.