What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301385 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant’s name is suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5301385?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Refund: $2,625.00 awarded to tenant; Lounge Wall: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301385?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13449675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301385 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant’s name is suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5301385?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Refund: $2,625.00 awarded to tenant; Lounge Wall: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301385?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13449675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 573 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301385 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301385 — net $3,477.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Lounge wall	$345.00		Repairs: Lounge wall
Cleaning	$402.50		Cleaning
Compensation: Rent refund		$2,625.00	Rent refund
Compensation: Damage to belongings		$4,000.00	Damage to belongings
Total award	$747.50	$6,625.00
Net award		$3,477.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,477.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301385 — net $3,477.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Lounge wall	$345.00		Repairs: Lounge wall
Cleaning	$402.50		Cleaning
Compensation: Rent refund		$2,625.00	Rent refund
Compensation: Damage to belongings		$4,000.00	Damage to belongings
Total award	$747.50	$6,625.00
Net award		$3,477.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,477.50

Order

The Tenant’s name is suppressed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Connolly Gear Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,477.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Tenant immediately noticed a “musty damp, mouldy” smell throughout the premises. She says there was mould visible on the walls and ceilings. The Landlord sent cleaners in. Within a week, the Tenant says that her belongings, and those of her young daughter, developed mould. She had those items cleaned but says that the mould returned and has remained a problem throughout the tenancy.
The Tenant claims other issues. She says that there are slugs, spiders, ants and fly larvae in the premises. She says she has had problems with the hot water, a smoke alarm and the condition of the washing machine. She also says that her daughter has developed a respiratory illness since moving into the premises.
The Tenant moved out of the premises on 19 September 2025 and now seeks an order refunding the bond, compensation – comprising of a rent refund, and compensation for her mould and moisture damaged property – and exemplary damages.
The Landlord denies liability for the mould. It says that there was some pre- existing mould staining at the start of the tenancy. It says that it did not know about that mould at the time but then arranged to have it cleaned shortly after the tenancy began. The Landlord says that the ongoing mould issues were due to the way the Tenant used the premises.
The Landlord has also filed a cross claim. It seeks to recover $1,150 for costs it incurred in repairing and cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. The issues
The issues I must determine in this case are: (a)Was there mould in the premises at the start of the tenancy? (b)Did the Landlord adequately remedy the mould? (c)Did the Tenant’s use of the premises cause or contribute to the mould? (d)Has the Landlord complied with its obligations under the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

(e)What remedy is the Tenant entitled to? (f)What remedy is Landlord entitled to? (g)Is the Tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Was there mould in the premises at the start of the tenancy?

The Tenant moved in on 6 June 2025. The Tenant says that she immediately noticed a mouldy and must smell and saw mould on the ceiling of the living room and one of the bedrooms.
The following day, the Tenant advised Connolly Gear Ltd, the property manager, that there was mould in the premises. The Tenant then called the property manager on 8 June 2025 and spoke to a person named Josh. The Tenant says she raised concerns about the condition of the premises, including the mould. She says that Josh asked her to send photographs, so she did.
Two of those photographs show mould on the ceiling and wall of the lounge room. 1 Another shows mould on the ceiling of the main bedroom. 2 Another shows mould on the ceiling in another part of the house. 3 The Tenant could not remember where that was. Another, which the Tenant thinks is a photograph taken in the kitchen, also shows mould on the ceiling. 4
The Tenant has produced other evidence to demonstrate that there was mould in the premises from the start of the tenancy, including a screenshot of a message from 8 June 2025, which shows a photograph of mould in the premises.
The Landlord also performed a pre-tenancy inspection and has also provided a report containing 96 photographs that it took on 3 June 2025, three days before the tenancy started. Those photographs also show mould in places, including black marks on the ceiling of the main bedroom 5 and the living room. 6
Scott McCorquodale, who appeared for the Landlord at the second and third hearing days, 7 agrees that there was “mould staining” in the premises at the start of the tenancy and says that the Landlord then arranged for cleaners to clean that mould. He denies that the Landlord knew that there was mould in the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Nonetheless, I find that the evidence shows that, at the start of the tenancy, the premises were contaminated with visible black mould.

Did the mould remain during the tenancy?

1 IMG 6750 and 6751 2 IMG 6752 3 IMG 6753 4 IMG 6754 5 Images 9 and 10 taken on 3 June 2025, which show black marks consistent with mould on the ceiling above the window. That is the same area as shown in the Tenant’s photographs from 6 June 2025. 6 Image 55 taken on 3 June 2025, which shows black marks consistent with mould above the living room window. That is the same area as shown in the Tenant’s photograph of 6 June 2025. 7 The Landlord did not appear at the first hearing day. It says that the notice of hearing and other documents for that hearing were served on an email address that the company no longer uses.

The Landlord engaged cleaners to clean the premises in the week beginning 9 June 2025. Precisely which date that happened on is unclear, as they were delayed due to the Tenant’s unavailability.
The Tenant was unhappy with the cleaner’s efforts. She says the cleaners performed a “surface wipe” and only cleaned the ceilings and walls and other areas that had visible mould. She says that there was no deep clean. The Landlord has provided no evidence to demonstrate the extent to which the premises were cleaned at that time.
The Tenant says that on 11 June 2025, her daughter became unwell, with flu- like symptoms and an inflamed ear. I understood the Tenant to attribute this illness to the mould in the premises. I cannot make that finding. Although I can understand how the Tenant may draw that connection, the evidence does not prove that the Tenant’s daughter was unwell due to any mould contamination.
The Tenant then discovered more mould. On 14 June 2025, the Tenant advised the Landlord by text message that she had discovered mould on the doorframe in the bathroom.
The Tenant says that she placed furniture walls when she moved in. On 21 June 2025, the Tenant moved her couch and noticed mould on the wall behind the couch and mould on the armrest of the couch. The Tenant produced a photograph that shows the mould on the wall behind the couch. 8
That same day, the Tenant noticed mould on her pantry shelf. 9 The Tenant says she then checked the rest of her furniture. She found mould on her daughter’s play kitchen, cube shelf and more mould on the living room wall. The Tenant produced various photographs showing mould in those places.
On about 22 June 2025, the Landlord arranged for different cleaners to clean the premises. The Tenant says the cleaners wiped the lounge rooms walls, the play kitchen and cube shelf. The Tenant also says that the cleaners flushed out the fly larvae from the shower walls. The Tenant says that there were fly larvae (little worms) in the shower walls which would come out every time she showered. The Landlord provided no evidence to demonstrate the extent to which the premises were cleaned at that time
The Tenant again says that this cleaning was inadequate, and mould quickly returned. The Tenant noticed more mould on the cube shelf, the play kitchen, and the couch armrest. The Tenant also discovered that her daughter’s trike, which had been stored in bedroom 2, was mouldy. 10 The Tenant then sent a 8 IMG 7199 9 IMG 7190 10 IMG 7821 notice to remedy to the Landlord on about 4 July 2025. The Landlord then arranged for a dehumidifier to be left at the premises on 6 July 2025.
The Tenant says used the dehumidifier regularly. She says that the dehumidifier filled up within 12 hours
On about 6 July 2025, the Tenant tried to sell a mattress. That mattress had been leaning against the wall in the spare room. When she moved that mattress, she noticed that the mattress and the wall was covered in mould. She did not sell the mattress.
The Tenant also became concerned about slugs, snails, ants, spiders and other insects entering the premises. She has provided photographs of those insects, including photographs of slime trails on the carpets, and a line of slugs clinging to the underside of a window frame beneath the window in a bedroom. Those slugs had entered through a gap between the timber window frame and the wall lining.
Mould started to become visible elsewhere. The Tenant produced a photograph that shows mould on the wall and skirting board in the main bedroom. The Tenant continued to discover mould on her belongings and on walls throughout the premises. The mould then continued throughout the tenancy.
The Tenant seems to have operated a business from the premises, which included dress hire and makeup. She has produced several photographs of mould forming on those dresses and various makeup items. Mould also began to form on other furniture, including her dining chairs. The evidence presented by the Tenant shows that the premises remained contaminated with mould until the tenancy ended in September 2025.
The evidence provided by the Tenant, including photographs and screenshots of emails and text messages, demonstrates that extensive mould continued to be present throughout the tenancy. In making that finding, I acknowledge that the Landlord made some effort to remove the mould and to reduce the ongoing risk of mould developing. It paid for cleaners twice and provided a dehumidifier. But the evidence shows that its efforts were not adequate. Did the Tenant’s use of the premises cause or contribute to the mould? The Landlord’s position
The Landlord says that the ongoing mould issues during the tenancy were due to the Tenant: (a)Consistently failing to ventilate the property appropriately; (b)Not making regular use of the installed heat pump or dehumidifier provided; (c)Blocking the ventilation; (d)Keeping curtains and blinds closed; and (e)Regularly drying clothes inside.
Other than the oral evidence of Mr McCorquodale, the Landlord provided no evidence in support of those allegations. I am told that regular inspections were performed during the tenancy, during which I suspect photographs were taken. The Landlord provided no evidence of the condition of the premises during those inspections.
The Landlord also says that these premises are not inherently mouldy, so the ongoing mould was caused by the Tenant’s use of the premises. It provided email correspondence from the previous tenant in support of this position, and in support of its submission that the ongoing mould issues were caused by the Tenant. In giving minimal weight to the evidence of the previous tenants – who did not give oral evidence in the hearing - I note that the previous tenants advise that they regularly cleaned the bathroom and kitchen walls with soapy water. I also note the photographs from the start of the tenancy that clearly show mould present in the premises. The Tenant’s response
The Tenant denies the Landlord’s allegations. She says she used the heat pump and dehumidifier. She says that the blinds at the front of the unit were often down, but the windows in the kitchen and bathroom were open. She also says that she dried clothes inside sometimes but used the dehumidifier while doing so. Tenancy Services guidance
Tenancy Services provides guidance to Tenants on what a tenant should do to prevent mould. 11 That guidance states: What the tenant should do to prevent mould Once you move in, you need to keep the house clean and tidy. This includes keeping it in a condition that doesn’t encourage mould and damp. A well-aired, ventilated house is crucial to prevent mould. You’re most likely to have problems with damp and mould in autumn and winter. A dry, well-aired home is easier to heat and healthier for you and your family. Open windows and doors whenever you can and open the curtains during the day. Activities like cooking, bathing or drying clothes create moisture. To remove this from the house, open windows and use any extractor fans. Other things you can do to prevent mould and damp are: • keep lids on pots when cooking • wipe condensation off walls and windows • hang washing outside, and make sure everything’s dry before putting it away • leave wardrobes a bit open and pull beds and furniture away from walls • keep the shower curtain hanging inside the shower or bath so water doesn’t drip on the floor, and wash the curtain every few weeks • use an electric heater rather than portable gas heaters (these release water as the gas burns) 11 https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/mould-and-dampness/ • keep only a few plants inside • if you have a mattress on the floor, air the mattress every day by removing the covers and lifting the mattress onto its side. How to remove mould To protect the health of everyone in your home, remove mould as soon as it appears. White vinegar is a cheap and effective way to clean mould. On painted surfaces, dilute the vinegar with water (half and half) to avoid damaging the paint. Leave it for a few days then wipe off the dead mould with soap and water using a clean cloth. You can also use diluted household bleach. Mix one part bleach with three parts water in a bucket of water. Use a clean sponge or cloth when washing off mould and rinse it often. This reduces the risk of the mould spreading. Wear gloves, eye protection and a safety mask when dealing with cleaning products and mould. What to do if the mould won't go away If you’re doing all the right things, and the house is still damp and mouldy, talk to the landlord. If hidden sources of dampness are left long enough they can cause expensive damage to a home. A qualified building surveyor may need to check the property. They can check to see if there is a hidden issue causing the dampness My assessment
Weighing the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Tenant’s use of the premises did contribute to the mould contamination, but the primary cause of the contamination was the pre-existing mould and the Landlord’s inadequate attempts to remove the mould.
There was mould present at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord then paid for cleaners to attend. The Tenant says that the cleaner’s efforts were inadequate, and that mould returned. The Landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the cleaning was adequate. It has provided no evidence as to what cleaning was performed or whether those cleaning efforts were adequate.
However, the Tenant did not then take adequate steps to prevent the further development of mould. The evidence shows that: (a) On occasion, the Tenant did not open the windows, allowing condensation to form. The Tenant provided a written statement she said: I used the dehumidifier as instructed, and during that time there was no condensation build-up. However, I did not open any windows for two full days recently, and by the end of that period, there was a significant amount of condensation inside the home – especially on the windowsills, which looked as if it had rained indoors. (b) The Tenant stored property against walls. The Tenant’s evidence was that she stored mattresses, furniture and a pillow against walls. (c) The Tenant dried clothes inside. The Tenant’s evidence was that she would, from time to time, dry clothes inside.
As noted in the Tenancy Services information above, it is recognised that there are important mechanisms to keep mould development down, such as with ventilation, placement of furniture, cleaning and not drying clothing inside the house. Those are factors that were in the control of the Tenant.
The Tenant’s use of the premises was therefore a contributing cause of the ongoing mould in the premises. But the Landlord must take primary responsibility. It did not provide the premises free of mould contamination and did not then ensure that the pre-existing mould was adequately remedied, meaning mould continued to form throughout the tenancy. Has the Landlord complied with its obligations under the Residential Tenancies

Act?

Failure to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness

The Landlord had an obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 12 It did not comply with that obligation. The Tenant’s evidence shows significant pre-existing mould. At least some of that mould is also visible in the Landlord’s pre-tenancy inspection photographs.
The Landlord did not then remedy that breach. It paid for two sets of cleaners to clean the premises and provided a dehumidifier, but the evidence shows that those efforts were ineffective. Healthy Homes Standards
The Tenant alleges that the Landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards because of the mould. The relevant standards – the Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard and the Ventilation Standard – do not apply to these facts.
The Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard applies to drainage systems, gutters, downpipes, and ground moisture barriers. The Tenant has not proven that the moisture in these premises was due to any failure with the drainage systems, gutters, downpipes or ground moisture barriers and there was no evidence to show that the premises failed to comply with the Standard.
In reaching this conclusion, it is important to note that the Standard is not a guarantee that premises will be free of moisture ingress. It simply establishes requirements for drainage systems, gutters, downpipes, and ground moisture barriers that assist in ensuring that there is no moisture ingress. Moisture ingress may still occur by other means – as it has here – without being a breach of the Standard. Where such moisture ingress occurs, tenants must look elsewhere for a remedy. 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a);
The Tenant also claimed a neighbouring property had a problem with water beneath the floor. I understood her to claim that the same issue may be present with these premises. There was no evidence presented to show that these premises had the same issue. I therefore find that the Landlord has not breached any of its obligations relating to this allegation.
Likewise, I am not satisfied that the presence of slugs and other insects is evidence of a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. I agree that slugs should not have been able to enter the premises through cracks in the joinery, but the evidence presented does not prove that the presence of slugs and other insects means the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

I have found that the Landlord has breached its obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The premises were contaminated with mould. The Landlord did not then adequately remedy that mould, meaning unacceptable levels of mould were present throughout the tenancy.
The Tenant seeks extensive remedies. She seeks: (a)A rent refund. She says that, given the mould, she paid too much rent for the premises. (b)Compensation for belongings damaged by mould. Attached to this decision is the list provided by the Tenant of the belongings and items that she claims compensation for. (c)Compensation for power and water costs. The Tenant provided no evidence in support of this part of her claim, so I dismiss it.
The Tenant is entitled to compensation. She has suffered harm because of the Landlord’s breach of its obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
In determining the Tenant’s entitlement to a remedy, I must consider her contribution towards the mould contamination. The Tenant’s actions did contribute to the ongoing mould contamination and to the damage she has suffered.
I order a rent refund of $175 per week for the 15 weeks of the tenancy. That refund reflects the loss of amenity and enjoyment that the Tenant suffered from living in a home affected by mould. This amount also recognises the Tenant’s lesser contribution to the ongoing mould contamination. If the Tenant had not contributed to the mould contamination, I would have ordered a rent refund of $200 per week.
The Tenant also seeks compensation for the loss suffered by the Tenant because of her belongings being damaged by the mould. It is not possible to precisely determine that loss for two

Reasons

(a)It is unclear whether all the belongings listed in the attachment to this decision were contaminated to the point that they needed to be disposed of. Items that are affected by mould may need to be disposed of, but that can sometimes be cleaned. I cannot therefore simply accept an assertion that all the affected items needed to be disposed of. (b)It is impossible to precisely determine the value of the items that do require replacement, including the mattresses and the couch. The Tenant has produced receipts for some of her belongings and has provided quotes for others. But those receipts and quotes do not account for the fact that many of the items will have depreciated in value due to their age and use.

Ultimately, the Tribunal must determine claims in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case and is not bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 13 Taking that approach, I consider the remedy that best does justice is to order compensation of $4,000 to the Tenant for the damage to her belongings caused by mould contamination. Some of her most valuable property – including furniture and mattresses – is so heavily contaminated with mould that it needs to be disposed of. Other property will need cleaning. She is entitled to compensation for that financial harm.
Again, the amount ordered reflects the Tenant’s contribution to the damage. If the Tenant had not contributed to the mould contamination, I would have ordered compensation of $4,500.
I reiterate that this is not a scientific calculation of the harm suffered by the Tenant due to the replacement or cleaning of mould contaminated items. Instead, it is my best estimate based on the evidence provided as to the value of the belongings, the damage to the belongings, the remediation required and the Tenant’s contribution to the harm, in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case.

What remedy is the Landlord entitled to?

The Landlord seeks to recover the following costs: (a)$230 – for painting a wall in one of the bedrooms. (b)$345 – for painting a wall in the lounge. (c)$402.50 – for cleaning the premises. The bedroom wall
The Landlord provided a photograph of the bedroom wall that required repainting. The marking on the wall was caused by mould. Given my finding that 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85(2) the Landlord has primary responsibility for the mould contamination, the Tenant is not liable for this cost. The lounge wall
There is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. 14 However, a tenant can be liable where: (a)the landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and (b)the tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission. 15
The Tenant had attached a television to one of the walls in the lounge. The Tenant’s father patched the wall at the end of the tenancy, but the wall was unpainted.
The Landlord provided a photograph of the wall. That photograph shows that the Tenant has damaged the wall and that the wall required repainting at the end of the tenancy. That damage is more than fair wear and tear and was intentional, in the sense that the Tenant intentionally attached a television to the wall, meaning that repairs would be required at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the $345 cost of painting that wall.
The Tenant suggested that her father should have been given an opportunity to perform the required painting before the Landlord incurred that cost. The Landlord was not required to provide that opportunity. Once the premises were left with damage, the Landlord was entitled to take reasonable steps to repair that damage, as it has done here. The cleaning
The Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. 16 She did not.
The Landlord has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy that show the carpets required vacuuming due to dirt and debris - including play-do, the top and inside of the fridge, rangehood, oven door and microwave were unclean, there was dirt or debris in cupboards and drawers required cleaning, the vinyl flooring was dirty, and the toilet and shower required cleaning.
The Landlord is entitled to recover the $402.50 it spent cleaning the premises. Those cleaning costs were unrelated to the mould issues. The costs were incurred in cleaning up items, dirt and debris left behind by the Tenant. Although the premises were not nearly as untidy as the Tribunal sometimes sees, the 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49A 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). premises were nonetheless not as reasonably clean and tidy as they should have been.

Is the Tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

The Tenant seeks exemplary damages for alleged unlawful acts by the Landlord, including alleged: (a)psychological abuse; (b)manipulation and blame shifting; (c) delays and avoidance; and (d) gaslighting and narcissistic abuse.
The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages for that conduct, as there is no evidence is this case to show that the Landlord’s behaviour towards the Tenant breached any obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act.
However, the Tribunal can consider exemplary damages where a landlord as failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 17 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 18 But the Tribunal can only award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that the party committed the unlawful act intentionally. 19
In this case, by a fine margin, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has acted intentionally. The Landlord denies knowing about the pre-existing mould contamination, and the mould in the photographs is not so obvious that I can conclude that the Landlord must have known or was wilfully blind to the mould. I cannot discount the possibility that the Landlord has overlooked the mould. In doing so, the Landlord did not exercise reasonable care, but I am not satisfied that it acted intentionally. I therefore decline to order exemplary damages. Name suppression and filing fee
The Tenant has been largely successful in her claim, so she is entitled to name suppression. I make no order regarding the filing fees, as each party was successful in their respective claims. I decline to suppress the Landlord’s name. It has rented mould contaminated premises. It is in the public interest that the Landlord’s name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301385 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 573 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301385 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 573 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Tenancies Act 1986?

Was there mould in the premises at the start of the tenancy?

Did the mould remain during the tenancy?

Act?

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

Reasons

What remedy is the Landlord entitled to?

Is the Tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Tenancies Act 1986?

Was there mould in the premises at the start of the tenancy?

Did the mould remain during the tenancy?

Act?

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

Reasons

What remedy is the Landlord entitled to?

Is the Tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions