Rajpal v. Weis, 2011 ABQB 130

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rajpal v. Weis, 2011 ABQB 130 Date: 20110307 Docket: 1103 03068 Registry: Edmonton Between: Mark Rajpal Plaintiff/Respondent - and - Crystal Weis Defendant/Applicant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Applicant Crystal Weis appeared on her own behalf seeking an extension of an Order to Vacate that she and her boyfriend had recently been issued with regarding premises she leases from the Respondent Landlord.

The Respondent Landlord appeared to oppose this application based on the non-payment of any rent by the Applicant Tenant since she and her boyfriend occupied the premises as of January 1, 2011. [ 2 ] The Applicant Tenant cited a number of what appeared to be legitimate concerns that she had in terms of vacating immediately at the end of February. These concerns included that she and her three children did not have a place to go, and at least two of her children had special needs. It was also extremely difficult for the Applicant Tenant to find accommodation on such short notice for a large family.

[ 3 ] On February 25, 2011 I decided that the Tenant should have an extension and should remain in the premises until the end of March 2011 to give her a further opportunity to find a new residence, but that the Landlord would have to be paid all his outstanding rentals at specifically designated times and dates.

This way the Landlord would eventually receive compensation for all rentals owning, something he had never been able to collect up until this time, and the Tenant and her family would have an opportunity to relocate in a more orderly fashion. [ 4 ] The Court however made it very clear that in order for the Tenant to receive the benefit of what effectively was a one month stay of the Order to Vacate properly issued in this matter, that all the payments to the Landlord had to be made on a timely and prompt basis. The terms of the payment order were as follows:– 1.

If the Applicant/Tenant pays the Respondent/Landlord $2,200.00 by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, February 25, 2011 the Applicant/Tenant the time to vacate shall be extended until March 31, 2011 for the premises located at 14543 - 121 Street, Edmonton, Alberta; 2. The Applicant/Tenant will pay $290.00 on or before Tuesday, March 1, 2011; 3.

The March 1, 2011 rent shall be paid in weekly installments as follows: $300.00 on or before 12 noon on March 11, 2011 $300.00 on or before 12 noon on March 18, 2011 $300.00 on or before 12 noon on March 25, 2011 $300.00 on or before 12 noon on April 1, 2011. [ 5 ] The Landlord has now deposed on March 1, 2011 that the Tenants were contacted at 4:05 p.m. on February 25, 2011 at which time they indicated that they were on their way to the Landlord’s residence to make payment. The Tenants never arrived, nor made any effort to contact the Landlord.

The Landlord’s further attempts to contact the Tenants have been futile, as the Tenants apparently will not answer their telephone. The Tenants have been served with the Landlord’s March 1, 2011 Affidavit. [ 6 ] As time was always clearly of the essence, the Landlord’s present Affidavit dated March 1, 2011 requires me to issue an immediate Writ of Possession to the premises in the Landlord’s favour. Heard on the 25 th day of February, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 3 rd day of March, 2011.

Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mark Rajpal Appeared On His Own Behalf Crystal Weis Appeared on Her Own Behalf