By Avrom Charach
A couple of years ago A PPMA member had an Order for Possession hearing where the RTB and RTC ruled a tenancy was terminated due to the police kicking in a tenants’ door and finding illegal activities in the suite. Both bodies denied the landlord’s request for the cost of door repairs citing the fact that the Act allows for damage caused by “any person he or she permits on the premises”. They ruled the police were not allowed on the premises by the tenants, they came in without the tenant’s express permission. In response to this ruling that landlord and others re-worded their tenancy agreements to broaden the definition of allowed to include people who came because of the tenants or their activities. A PPMA member received order W2006-004855 in March, 2006 which supported the effect of such wording in their lease. All members should look at their lease and decide whether they should amend it for such cases.
In September 2005 a tenancy was terminated due to the suspicion that the tenants were selling drugs from their suite. A few days later, while the tenants were not in their suite weapon bearing people were heard screaming the name of one of the tenants and indicating they were there to get them. These criminals then kicked in the tenant’s door and ransacked the suite. Police attended and shortly thereafter caught a suspect who, according to their incident report, “alleged that the tenant was a dealer and they were looking for money and drugs”. The tenants finished moving out a few days later leaving the damaged door and other suite damages. The landlord applied for damages including both the cost to repair to the door on the day of the break in and replacing the door shortly thereafter.
At the hearing the landlord pointed out their lease clause which held tenants responsible for damage including those damages caused by “persons who are permitted on the premises by him
or caused to enter or attempt to enter the premises due to him or his actions”. The landlord provided a written letter from a witness citing that the criminals called out for the tenant and a copy of an Incident Confirmation from the Winnipeg Police Service. This was a co-tenancy. The tenant purported to be a drug dealer did not attend. The co-tenant stated that she had moved out of the rental unit a few months prior to the incident and that she and her co-tenant were obviously the victims in the incident so should not be held responsible. She further argued that their door would not have been damaged if another person did not admit the criminals into the building.
In allowing the cost of door repairs/replacement the hearing indicated the facts supported the landlord’s contention that the tenant was responsible. The officer decided that the circumstances showed the tenant allowed entry as defined by their lease. This decision was not appealed to the RTC.
This decision shows that learning from the experiences of our fellow landlords will help to prevent future situations where the wording of the Act does not disallow a logical conclusion. We also can see that obtaining evidence from reliable third party witnesses, in this case, a Police Incident Confirmation, can be useful. The landlord obtained this by phoning the Police Service and paying a small fee. Do you have a case that you believe can educate our members? Please write it up for our newsletter or supply details to the PPMA so that we can have it written up in a future edition.
Return to PPMA Articles