Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4657414 — 14-day notice
Decided 10 Jun 2024 · Published 10 Jun 2024 · Application 4657414
- 14-day notice
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Counsel for the tenant’s 10 June 2024 application to adjourn the hearing set down for 10 to 14 June 2024 is dismissed.
- The tenant’s application 4620129 is dismissed.
- The tenancy of [the tenant] at [tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11:59pm on Monday 10 June 2024.
- [The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $3,863.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
- I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend after having her adjournment request on 7 June 2024 dismissed.
- The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, possession, exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure, without excuse, to quit the premises upon termination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The tenant applied for compensation, exemplary damages, work orders and reimbursement of the filing fee. A more detailed breakdown of the basis for the tenant’s compensation, exemplary damages and work orders claims was noted in the Tribunal’s 7 March 2024 Pre- hearing case conference minute. Further adjournment request made 10 June 2024
- On 7 June 2024, counsel for the tenant applied for an adjournment of the hearing set down for 10 to 14 June 2024 on the following grounds: a. The tenant was provided a medical certificate by her medical practitioner on 22 March 2024 that confirms she has been “struggling with multiple stressors and anxiety problems from domestic issues in the last 6 months” and asks the Tribunal to “please kindly redate her hearing to July 2024”; b. The 22 March 2024 medical certificate was only provided to counsel for the tenant that day, so he was unable to request an adjournment earlier; c. The tenant had tried to get an appointment with her medical practitioner earlier in the week, but the medical practitioner has been unwell and not at work. She has an appointment to see her medical practitioner on Monday, if he is back at work; d. The tenant has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), due to her grandchild’s death, and is receiving ongoing medical treatment and medication. Her symptoms are severe, including constant tics, involuntary movements, serious depressive symptoms, and uncontrollable weeping, often rendering her unable to get out of bed; e. The tenant became suicidal three weeks ago, although this immediate danger has now passed; f. The tenant’s daughter, who has been her caregiver, has recently been hospitalised so the tenant has not got the support system she requires to participate in the hearing; g. The tenant is attending a mental health clinic at Greenlane that day due to her serious mental and emotional state and recent suicidal thoughts; and h. Counsel for the tenant’s opinion is: i. The tenant has demonstrated a loss of proportionality, focus and rationality since January 2024 because she has recently been put in a position where she has had to repeatedly relive her grandson’s death when putting together statements for a Coroner’s investigation and a Police investigation, as well gathering evidence for this hearing and Auckland Council’s enquiries into the pool fence and gate; ii. The tenant is constantly breaking down emotionally and is unable to discuss matters coherently; iii. He has been unable to get coherent instructions or any evidence from the tenant for some time to prepare for the hearing, despite assurances that the evidence would be provided, and cannot write submissions or provide witness statements by Monday for the hearing; iv. The substantial delays in having the hearing have mostly come about because the nature of the proceedings has changed since the death of the tenant’s grandson in November 2023 and he has only become more acutely aware of mental health issues in the last few days; and v. The landlords will not be prejudiced by a further delay as the tenant is up to date with her rent and outgoings and has proven she is unlikely to get into rent or outgoings arrears.
- In response to the7 June 2024 application for a further adjournment, Counsel for the landlord argued: a. The tenant’s application was made on 25 July 2023; b. The landlord’s applications were made on 15 August and 5 September 2023; c. The tenant has sought and been granted three adjournments to date, on 30 August 2023, 27 November 2023 and 9 January 2024. This has meant the landlord has made preparations to be in New Zealand for these hearings and most of them have been adjourned very close to the hearing dates based on the tenant not having had sufficient time to prepare for the hearings and/or being emotionally and mentally unprepared for the hearings due to a variety of family matters, only some of which relate to her grandson’s death on 20 November 2023; d. The tenant appears to have done nothing to ensure she is emotionally and mentally prepared for the hearing given she: i. Has known about the hearing dates since 7 March 2024 and agreed to them; ii. Has known about and been participating in the Police, Coronial and Council enquiries for some time and waited until the day before a 5 day hearing to apply for a fourth adjournment; iii. Did not provide her Counsel or the Tribunal the 22 March 2024 medical certificate, she is now seeking to rely on for her application for a fourth adjournment, until today; iv. Has not provided any medical evidence that she is currently mentally and emotionally unfit to attend the hearing, other than the testimony of her lawyer and a 2.5-month-old medical certificate.
- The landlord has been unable to have his applications for termination of the tenancy and possession heard for 10 months, has suffered emotionally and financially as a result of the repeated delays and has had to fly his 90 year old father temporarily to Melbourne to get support from his sister as he is unable to financially return to NZ permanently to look after his aged and ill father until he has possession of the rental premise;
- The landlord has been unfairly prejudiced as a result of the three previous adjournments and there is no guarantee that a further adjournment to 30 September 2024 will find the tenant any more able to participate in the hearing than she will be on Monday;
- The landlord is continuing to receive 14-day notices for minor issues that are disproportionate to the intense focus the tenant is placing on them and this is causing him stress and anxiety as he has tried hard to meet his landlord obligations for the duration of the tenancy; and
- The protracted delays in the process have put a severe strain on the landlords martial relationship and has been detrimental to both landlord’s emotional and physical health and wellbeing.
- After giving due consideration to the tenant’s application for a fourth adjournment (the third post her grandson’s death), and the landlord’s objections to an adjournment being granted, found there were insufficient grounds to justify the granting of a fourth adjournment for the following reasons: a. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the Tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants. It has been 11 months since the tenant’s application, and it would be a minimum of a further 3 months before the Tribunal would be able to schedule another 5- day face to face hearing at Auckland District Court; b. The tenant has made three prior requests for adjournments to allow her time to prepare for the hearing and to deal with family challenges and various enquiries/investigations that has resulted from her grandson’s death. Each time the adjournment has been granted, often less than a week before the scheduled hearing, but the tenant has been no more prepared for the next scheduled hearing. Based on the tenant’s actions to date, it is highly probable the tenant will be in no better position to attend a hearing in late September/early October 2024 than she will be on 10 June 2024; c. The tenant is legally represented, that representative could advocate for her at the hearing thereby limiting how much oral evidence she will be required to give, and she has already provided considerable amounts of evidence to the Tribunal that her Counsel can rely on to present her claims and defend the landlord’s claims; d. There will be significant prejudice to the position of the landlords if a fourth adjournment is granted. Although the tenant has not been in rent or outgoing arrears since the short hearing on 7 March 2024, I have delayed making a decision on the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy and possession until I can hear the tenant’s substantive claims. e. Further delays in me being able to hear the tenant’s substantive claims further prejudices the landlord being able to enforce possession of the rental premise when he has submitted evidence that supports his claims that he requires the property as his primary residence so he can support his aging and infirmed father and the tenants refusal to quit the premises has deprived him and his wife of being able to support his mother in the last few months of her life. He says he wants to be there for his 90-year-old father in his final months/years and further delays compromises his ability to do so; f. To carry on delaying this hearing is not in the tenant’s best interest. The hearing is yet another proceeding she is involved in that continues to remind her of the loss of her grandson and to cause further stress and anxiety; and g. There is a significant cost to the public in adjourning a 5-day hearing the working day before the hearing is due to commence as no further fixtures can be set down to make use of that time. The tenant has not taken all reasonably practicable steps to minimise this cost by alerting the Tribunal early enough about the need for a fourth adjournment when she has received medical advice in March 2024 that a hearing should not be set down until July 2024. In addition, she has continued to participate in the short hearing about the termination of her tenancy and rent/water rates arrears 6 days after receiving the medial certificate. She has also continued to issue 14-day notices to the landlord in relation to garden and lawn maintenance, among other things and seems hyper focused on the issues that the hearing has been set down to allow her to traverse and seek Orders
- Counsel for the tenant has again sought a further late adjournment of the 10 to 14 June 2024 hearing in his Sunday, 9 June 2024 Minute, despite my very clear 7 June 2024 minute that the hearing would proceed today, and the tenant’s application would be dismissed if she and/or her counsel did not attend the hearing.
- Counsel for the tenant’s 9 June Minute was not received by the registry until this morning. I received it 30 minutes prior to the start of today’s hearing.
- The 9 June 2024 Minute states “In your directions of June 7, 2024, you required [the tenant] to be assessed by a medial professional to confirm her inability to participate in the hearing due to mental health concerns. [The tenant] has complied with this requirement”. My 7 June 2024 Minute does not make this direction. I accepted and fully considered all the grounds counsel for the tenant submitted to me at the 7 June 2024 case management conference, including accepting the PTSD diagnosis and the current state of [the tenant’s] mental health, and made very clear orders.
- The 9 June 2024 Minute offers the following grounds for an application for me to reconsider my 7 June 2024 decision to dismiss the tenant’s application for a late adjournment: a. [The tenant’s] PTSD diagnosis and state of mental health, conveyed to me by her counsel on 7 June 2024, has now been confirmed by a Locum Consultant Psychiatrist from Te Whatu Ora’s Mental Health Services Urgent Response team; b. The prejudice to [the tenant], of me not adjourning this week’s scheduled hearings, outweighs any prejudice to [the landlord] for the following reasons: i. [The tenant]is receiving medication and care from the acute mental health team, is scheduled to see the crisis team at 2:00pm today and is in touch with them as needed; ii. [The tenant] is experiencing acute symptoms, including distress, depression, and suicidal ideation and is overwhelmed by the hearing; iii. Compelling [the tenant] to attend this week’s hearing would severely prejudice and exacerbate her mental health challenges; iv. There is no financial loss to [the landlord]. He can continue to use the rent he gets from [the tenant] to cover his mortgage and can rent another premise in the area using the money he would have had to pay in mortgage payments if he was granted possession back of the property.
- I have considered the additional grounds put to me by counsel for the tenant and reassert my 7 June 2024 decision to dismiss the tenant’s application for adjournment for the following reasons: a. I reiterate all the reasons set out in paragraph 11 above, sub paragraphs (a) to (g); b. The 7 June 2024 letter from the Locum Consultant Psychiatrist from Te Whatu Ora’s Mental Health Services Urgent Response team does not give any indication of when [the tenant’s] will be in a fit mental state to allow her to prepare for and attend a hearing on the three applications currently before the Tribunal; c. I am not prepared to put the Government to a further expense of setting down another 5-day hearing in September/October 2024 that [the tenant] will in all likelihood still be mentally and emotionally unfit to attend without further exacerbating her PTSD related mental distress and depression; d. [The landlord] and his wife have submitted to me this morning that they have: i. Been ready to relocate to New Zealand from Singapore since the beginning of September 2023; ii. Suffered considerable stress, inconvenience and expense as a result of the tenant’s refusal to quit the premises after receiving the 63-day notice terminating her tenancy on 31 August 2023; iii. Their furniture and other possessions packed up in a container in Singapore waiting to be sent to New Zealand; iv. They have hired a storage unit in New Zealand that contains all of the items they require for their initial relocation to New Zealand. They initially hired this storage to the beginning of September and have had to extend the hire of this storage facility, firstly to October 2023 and more latterly to July 2024; v. Missed out on being with [the landlord’s] 84-year-old mother in the last three months of her life because of the delay in them being able to get possession of their family home in New Zealand and found it distressing to get calls from his mother from October 2023 to January 2024 asking why they were not back at home to care for her when she was so gravely ill. She died in January 2024 leaving her distressed and unwell 90-year-old husband behind unable to care for himself; vi. Had to ask [the landlord’s] Melbourne based sister to come to New Zealand to look after [the landlord’s] father until they could get possession of their New Zealand family home. [The landlord’s] sister left her home and family to come to New Zealand from January 2023 to April 2024 to look after her father until [the landlord] could get possession of his New Zealand home. [The landlord’s] sister has had to return to her home and family and was forced to temporarily relocate [the landlord’s] father to Melbourne until [the landlord] and his wife can move back to their New Zealand based home to care for him. This has had a considerable financial cost to [the landlord] and his sister; vii. Become very concerned about [the landlord’s] father who is confused, depressed and anxious about being away from his home, his own doctors and the only links he has to his late wife. He calls them crying and tells them he has no friends in Melbourne and no one to take him for outings and he wants to know why they don’t want to care for him and let him come home to New Zealand. This is causing [the landlord], his wife, his sister and her family extreme stress and concern; viii. Grave concerns that they will also be deprived of [the landlord’s] father last months/years of life due to their inability to get possession back of what was their family home in New Zealand for many years. e. There is nothing in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that states a landlord can be compelled to rent another property to live in while he/she/they wait for a protracted hearing date to allow a tenant to remain in a property that she/he/they have been given lawful notice to vacate; f. [The landlord’s] and his wife have satisfied me that they have been and will continue to be financially penalised if the hearing today was adjourned because they have given evidence that: i. They continue to incur storage costs in New Zealand and Singapore as they continue to live in a state of flux not knowing when they will be able to conclude their relocation fully; ii. They have incurred the costs of flights from Singapore to attend the hearing today and would incur further flight costs if I was to adjourn the hearing again; iii. They have incurred the costs of helping to relocate [the landlord’s] father to Melbourne temporarily and for care costs as his father is not eligible for any Government assistance in Australia; iv. [The landlord’s] father’s superannuation will be compromised if he is out of New Zealand for too long and this will mean that [the landlord] and his wife will have to cover the financial costs of keeping his father’s home functioning until he can get his father back to New Zealand; and v. There would be both a direct and indirect cost to [the landlord] having to look for a rental property in as close proximity to his father as the property [the tenant] refuses to leave. In the current rental market, there is no guarantee he could find one at the same rate as what [the tenant] is paying in rent, without taking into consideration any mortgage top ups they may have to cover when interest rates are not stable. There is likely to be increased petrol costs if Mr and Mrs [landlord surname] had to travel further than 5 minutes across Auckland to attend to his father. [The landlord’s] New Zealand based home is 5 minutes away from his father’s home; vi. Mr and Mrs [landlord surname] have incurred the costs of having contractors lined up to do the work they wanted done before they moved back into the house in September/October 2023 and have had to cancel these contractors because [the tenant] refuses to let contractors into the house or to undertake any work. [The landlord] intends to replace the carpets, paint the interior and exterior of the house, change appliances and undertake other refurbishments [the landlord] suspects may also need to be done. [The tenant] won’t allow [the landlord] or any contractors access to the house to undertake the required work or assessments. [The tenant] has taken a trespass order out on [the landlord] in September 2023, one of his property managers in July of 2023, a building contractor in July 2023, and another contractor in September 2023.
- I am satisfied that [the landlord] would be financially and emotionally prejudiced if today’s hearing was adjourned. In addition, there would be continued financial and emotional distress as well as stress and inconvenience to [the landlord] sister and his father if the hearing gets delayed further for a period of no less than 3 months. Name suppression
- The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication of the landlord’s name is ordered.
- The tenant applies for suppression of her name and identifying details to be suppressed. The tenant has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and related mental health concerns because of her grandson’s drowning in the pool at the rental premise in November of 2023. She is currently receiving treatment from an acute mental health provider.
- I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant distress publishing the tenant’s name could result in when she applies for future tenancies and on her safety and wellbeing when Mental Health Services Urgent Response team comments are considered.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- The landlord’s confirmed to me that his 84-year-old mother was unwell in June 2023. She asked [the landlord] and his wife to come back to New Zealand to take care of her and her husband, who was not used to doing anything for himself. He explained that his parents ran a traditional Indian household where the wife looks after the husband and all household affairs. Mr and Mrs [landlord surname] say, on 29 June 2023, they issued [the tenant] with a 63-day notice terminating her tenancy on 31 August 2023. The reason they gave her for terminating her tenancy by the giving of such notice [the landlord], owner of the premises, requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as his principal place of residence for at least 90 days (Refer s51(1)(a) of the RTA).
- [The tenant] did not vacate the premises by 31 August 2023. On Monday, 18 September 2023, [the landlord] sent [the tenant] an email that said “You have not made any arrangements to vacate the property as per the Notice to Vacate issued on 29th June 2023 notifying you of the end of tenancy on 31st August 2023. As such please find attached 14-day Notice to Remedy. This is NOT to be construed as a consent granting you permission to stay on the said property despite your rental payments. We note that you have refused to vacate the property and have also refused to meet my Agent for the final inspection and handover. As I have been advised and as you are aware, I have now applied to tribunal for a possession order of the property. I hope that this can be resolved amicably as this is now impacting my planned move to NZ”. [The tenant] replied to this email the same day sayings “[landlord Christian name], I have no intentions of vacating the property. I have been very clear about this”.
- The evidence shows that [the tenant] has continued to refuse to leave the premises, has accused [the landlord] of issuing the notice in retaliation for her 25 July 2023 application to the Tribunal, has been in rent and water rates arrears by varying amounts since January 2024. [The tenant’s] grandson died on 20 November 2023 after an accidental drowning incident at the rental premises on 9 November 2023. On 7 March 2024 the rent was in arrears of $12,130.00 and no rent had been paid at all from 16 November 2023 to 7 March 2024.
- At the 7 March 2024 case management conference I made it clear to [the tenant] that I was concerned about the growing amount of rent arrears and that any equitable offset to these arrears she may achieve through her application to the Tribunal would be likely to be less than what she would be awarded if she continued to not pay rent until the hearing of the substantive matters raised in her application. I also pointed out the Tribunal has no discretion, it must terminate a tenancy if rent is 21 days or more in arrears and by the date of the substantive hearing of all three applications she was likely to have rent arrears at that level even after any equitable offset was considered. In addition, [the landlord] has given evidence that he was struggling to pay the mortgage and [the tenant’s] water rates as well as his own living and other expenses when she was refusing to pay her rent and water rates as they feel due.
- [The tenant] was issued fourteen 14-day notices requiring her to pay her rent arrears from 18 July 2023 to 18 March 2024 and she failed to remedy these breaches of her tenancy agreement and her statutory obligations within the required timeframes.
- On 28 March 2024 I held a short hearing to address the issue of the growing rent and water rates arrears. Between 7 and 26 March 2024 [the tenant] had cleared all the rent and water rates arrears and has continued to pay her rent and water rates on time and in full. As such, her counsel posited that [the landlord] will not be fiscally prejudiced if [the tenant] remains in the rental premises until the substantive hearing that had been set down for 10 to 14 June 2024.
- In my 20 May 2024 Order I declined to make a decision regarding termination of [the tenant’s] tenancy until the hearing of the substantive matters I required more information in order to assess whether the 29 July 2023 termination notice was lawful or retaliatory. Because I cannot wait until some unknown time in the future when [the tenant] is declared medically fit to participate in the substantive proceedings she commenced on 25 July 2023 and the landlord commenced on 15 August 2023 and 5 September 2023, I have based my decision to terminate [the tenant’s] tenancy today based on the evidence of the landlord.
- [The landlord] has provided compelling evidence in support of his claim that the 63 day notice he issued [the tenant] terminating her tenancy on 31 August 2023 was genuine and lawful, as follows: a. In January 2023 Mr and Mrs [landlord surname] travelled back to New Zealand to visit [the landlord’s] aged parents. They noticed the decline in his 84-year-old mother and 90-year-old fathers health and made a decision to move closer to home and [the landlord’s] parents and had discussions about moving permanently back to New Zealand; b. In April 2023, [the landlord] discussed his plans with his employer Meinhardt EPCM and the Chairman supported [the landlord’s] decision with additional opportunities to explore expanding the business into New Zealand and the Pacific Islands; c. On 19 June 2023, [the landlord] received a letter from his employer supporting his move to New Zealand and the new opportunity it had offered to him and that he had accepted; d. On 29 June 2023, [the landlord] served the 63-day notice on [the landlord] terminating her tenancy on 31 August 2023 for the purpose of him wanting to return to live in the property permanently; e. [The landlord’s] informed his sister that he and his wife were relocating to New Zealand to look after their parents as his mother was unwell and both parents had declining health; f. On 18 September 2023, [the landlord] sent [the tenant] a 14-day notice to vacate the premises as the tenancy had ended. [The tenant’s] reply concerned [the landlord] as she indicated she had no intention of quitting the premises and [the landlord] was well down the track of relocating his life to New Zealand; g. On 20 September 2023, [the landlord] travelled back to New Zealand in the hopes of progressing a move back into the property as he had packed up his life in Singapore and was beginning to explore the business opportunities in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. He had sent some personal belongings to New Zealand that were being stored in a storage hire facility in Auckland that would enable him and his wife to live in their house until the remainder of their household items were shipped back to New Zealand from Singapore. It was too expensive to have that container sitting on a New Zealand wharf when it had become evident that [the tenant] had no intention of moving out of the premises; h. In October 2023, [the landlord’s] mother’s health rapidly declined, and she died in January 2024. He has been deprived of the opportunity to spend her final months with her as he could not afford to pay for additional accommodation in New Zealand while covering the costs of him and his wife continuing to live in temporarily in Singapore while at the same time paying for the storage of their household items and personal belongings in two countries and not knowing how long he would have to juggle working in the South Pacific while based in Singapore; i. [The landlord] has continued to pay for his container load of household items in Singapore and $300.00 a month for storage in New Zealand for his and his wife’s household items and personal belongings; j. By April 2024, after I declined to terminate [the tenant’s] tenancy until the substantive hearing, [the landlord] had to ask his sister to support his father as his health has declined and he is lost in the grief of losing his wife; k. On 26 September 2023, [the landlord] obtained quotes for his and his wife’s planned move back to New Zealand; l. On 27 October 2023, in anticipation of moving back to New Zealand imminently, [the landlord] sought quotes for scaffolding, interior and exterior painting, new carpets, curtains, blinds and a new vanity and other décor changes.
- I have considered all the evidence provided by the parties, as outlined above in paragraphs [24] to [31], and am satisfied: a. The landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he had taken steps to move back to New Zealand permanently and to reside in the premises within 90 days of the tenancy ending on 31 August 2023; b. The termination notice meets the requirements of s51(3) and (4) and the reason given for the termination is genuine; and c. The tenant has not established that the termination notice was given wholly or partially because she asserted her contractual or statutory based rights by making application 4620129 to the Tribunal nor because of the plethora of 14 day notices she has issued to the landlord and has not proven the termination notice fails to comply with the requirements of s51 of the Act.
- Consequently, the tenancy is terminated as at 11:59pm today and possession granted to the Landlord.
Did the tenant fail, without excuse, to quit the premises upon termination?
- [The landlord] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 31 August 2023, the date the tenancy should have ended, but for [the tenant’s] failure, without excuse to quit the premises.
- A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant did not vacate the premises on 31 August 2023 and did not have a lawful excuse for this failure. She sent the email set out in paragraph [25] above stating “I have no intentions of vacating the property. I have been very clear about this”. I find she has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I am satisfied it would be just to require the tenant to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenant intentionally chose not to vacate the premises when she had been issued with a lawful 63-day notice ending the tenancy on 31 August 2023 because it did not suit her to leave. In addition, the number of adjournment applications suggest she thought she may have grounds to have the notice overturned by the Tribunal but when she had the opportunity to have her retaliatory notice claim heard she sought to continuously delay the hearings in part to remain in the tenancy; b. The landlord has suffered financial losses, stress and inconvenience associated with his inability to regain possession of the premises because the tenant would not vacate the premises and he has been unable to have his application for termination of the tenancy heard by the Tribunal in a timely manner; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity of his property for 10 months; and d. It is in the public interest for tenant’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to quit the premises when issued a lawful notice terminating the tenancy.
- I make an order for the tenant to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for her breach of s40 of the RTA accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Because the Landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
TENANTS CLAIMS
- There was no appearance from the tenant or her representative at the hearing. The tenant’s claims are dismissed on the basis of failure to prosecute those claims.