M. [1] Tenant (Appellant) - v. -, 2011 NSSM 26

Claim No: 340123 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES Cite as: M. v. Oxford Properties, 2011 NSSM 26 BETWEEN: M. [1] Tenant (Appellant) - and - OXFORD PROPERTIES/OMERS REALTY Landlord (Respondent) DECISION BEFORE Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator Hearing held at Halifax, Nova Scotia on February 21, 2011 and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia on February 22, 2011, written submissions received March 8, 2011, March 15, 2011 and March 22, 2011. Decision rendered on April 12, 2011. APPEARANCES For the Tenant self-represented For the Landlord Michelle Kelly, counsel

BY THE COURT: Introduction 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated November 18, 2010. 2 The term “appeal” does not accurately describe what appears to be happening with some regularity in these matters; namely, one party or the other (more often but not always the Tenant) chooses not to appear at the hearing before the Residential Tenancy Officer, knowing that an appeal by way of hearing de novo is the next step.

In such cases, there is no substantive order of the Director being reviewed, and the evidence is heard for the first time in this court . 3 A common refrain is that the party who proceeds in this way has felt pressured and/or constrained by procedural requirements or limitations at the Residential Tenancies level, or simply has no faith in the Residential Tenancy Officer. 4 I will leave it to others to consider whether the Residential Tenancies Act was ever intended to produce this result.

While, as a Small Claims Adjudicator, I am not bound by any of the findings of the Residential Tenancy Officer that has conducted a hearing, I have often found his or her account of the issues and the evidence to be helpful in arriving at a just result. 5 I also note that the Residential Tenancy Officer has a specific mandate to attempt to mediate the dispute, which is an option not open to me, but which is a very important step in the process. 6 In the case here, the Tenant essentially boycotted the (eventual) Residential Tenancies hearing, because the Residential Tenancy Officer had indicated that she was limiting the scope of the hearing to what she believed were the issues identified on an earlier occasion, together with such issues that the Tenant could identify within a certain (and arguably arbitrary) length of time.

The Tenant disagreed with this ruling and considered that participating would be futile. The hearing proceeded without her and resulted in a dismissal of her claims, by default. 7 Whether or not she would have been better off participating is a debatable point. Her dispute had been going on formally for a long time - almost a year by the time of the Residential Tenancies hearing which resulted in the order dismissing her claims, and more than a year by now - and she had experienced some difficulties with the way her complaint had been handled along the way.

She had lost faith with that system and with the people who work in it. 8 While having to proceed without the benefit of any findings by the Residential Tenancy Officer is one problem, the much larger problem here is this: What was designed to be an informal and expeditious system for resolving issues between Landlords and Tenants - at either the Residential Tenancy Officer or Small Claims Court level - is utterly ill-suited to attempting to address this Tenant’s massively detailed, constantly shifting, omnibus set of grievances against the Landlord and some of its agents. 9 The Residential Tenancies Act which came into being in its present form less than twenty years ago, created an administrative agency and clothed it with the exclusive quasi-judicial authority to resolve certain disputes between Landlords and Tenants.

The Director, which in practice means a Residential Tenancy Officer, who is usually not a lawyer, is specifically directed by the Act to investigate complaints and attempt to mediate a settlement. Only if the matter cannot be resolved, does it then go to a quite informal and usually short hearing, following which an order is made. The rules of evidence play little role at those hearings. 10 The scheme is designed for relatively simple disputes, which is not to minimize their importance to the parties. It is supposed to be expedient.

It is not equipped to address the type and level of grievances that this Tenant has sought to advance. 11 The Tenant’s position is set out in her Brief, supplemented with her Reply Brief, which are anything but “brief” - being

approximately 100 pages of dense, single-spaced text, containing a total of more than 80,000 words. This is the length of many novels. To put this into perspective, the rules of most courts, including the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, would only permit a written submission of less than one-quarter this amount of material, and those Courts hear and decides matters of the highest importance and issues of considerable legal and factual complexity.

Furthermore, such courts impose a specific template which makes the submissions much easier to follow. 12 I concede that I did not specifically limit the Tenant - either in terms of format or length - when I agreed to accept written submissions, but the end result is something which stretches the process to a virtual breaking point. 13 The problem is complicated by the fact that under the Residential Tenancies Act I am directed to render a decision within 14 days of the conclusion of the hearing, which here would be the receipt of the last submission.

This is a deadline that I will not have met by the time this decision is issued. 14 As must be obvious, it has been a major challenge for me to sift through the dense documentation to extract the merits that may be there. The Brief and Reply Brief are partly a detailed inventory of complaints and costs, and partly an unfocussed screed, fulminating against the Landlord and its agents. This edited portion of the

Summary provided at the outset of the Brief gives some sense of what follows: At first blush it appears that this is a matter of Residential issues between a tenant and landlord. In actuality it is everything but, the tenant-landlord relationship just providing the vehicle to manifest more serious and critical issues of bait and switch tactics, continuous lying and deception, empty promises, failures to complete, and flagrant violations to Statutes /Acts/Legislation, municipally, provincially and federally. ....... It is the good ole fashioned story of classist discrimination at its ugliest.

It is the complicit and equally culpable collusion of government agencies and public servants who failed to adhere to their own policies, expectations, duty of care, due diligence and mandates. It is about retaliatory targeting against those who dare speak out of their perceived stations in life. It is about the enboldenment of bad practice and behaviour that harms those most who can afford it least.

It is about the captive audiences of the Impoverished and Vulnerable who are at the relentless mercy of those who are in control of anything to do with subsistence or necessities of life such as Housing. 15 While I acknowledge and respect the Tenant’s obvious intelligence and commitment, this is not a forum that can or should be responsive to all of her complaints or concerns. It is my responsibility and challenge to bring some perspective to this matter and perform the function that the law has entrusted me to do.

That this will undoubtedly frustrate and disappoint the Tenant is as inevitable as it is unfortunate. The Parties 16 The Landlord is the owner and manager of some 20 buildings containing some 1,355 apartments in the Highfield Park Area of Dartmouth. It is on all of the evidence a reputable Landlord that attempts to provide quality affordable accommodation.

I know that the Tenant vehemently disagrees with this characterization, but the most I will say is that there are challenges associated with providing affordable accommodation and that some of the tenants who may be attracted to or rely on such accommodation do not properly respect their surroundings, which may have the effect of diminishing the experience for others. 17 Furthermore, like all large corporate entities, this Landlord is run by human beings who can sometimes behave poorly, or indifferently, with the result that they have a very unhappy customer on their hands. 18 The Tenant is a single woman who suffers from a number of medical difficulties, only one of which was openly discussed in the evidence, although others were mentioned with some specificity in the written submissions.

What was clear at the hearing was, by her own admission, that she suffers from environmental sensitivities, compounded by fibromyalgia for which she is under the care of a physician at the Environmental Health Centre in Fall River. Other health issues including post-traumatic stress were referred to in her submission.

19 The Tenant is educated and intelligent, but has been forced into poorer circumstances by her multiple disabilities. 20 While this was not explored in the evidence, I take notice of the fact that environmental illness, sometimes called multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), is a condition that renders sufferers more vulnerable than most of the population to chemicals and other substances in the environment. Given the amount of time most people spend in their homes, particularly those who do not work outside their home, having a safe home environment is a huge factor.

There is a spectrum: some people are mildly sensitive, while others extremely so. Those mildly affected may suffer some discomfort, often transiently, while those profoundly affected can become chronically debilitated. 21 While MCS was at one time considered to be a controversial diagnosis, it has gained gradual acceptance over the past twenty years or so. By now it is accepted by most insurance companies, governments and other agencies as a valid condition that may be disabling, depending upon its severity.

As a valid disability, it engages the reasonable accommodation requirements of human rights statutes, which in Nova Scotia is the Human Rights Act. (The word “accommodation” in this context may be an unfortunate coincidence, as it has nothing to do with housing, per se.) 22 Sections 5(1)(

b) and (

o) of the Human Rights Act provides that “No person shall in respect of .... accommodation .... discriminate against an individual or class of individuals on account of .. physical disability or mental disability.” 23 The Supreme Court of Canada in numerous cases has recognized a duty of accommodation, which in the case of housing accommodation would require a Landlord to take reasonable steps to create a more enabling environment than it might otherwise have done or been willing to consider doing. 24 The duty to accommodate disability is perhaps more well known in employment situations, where an employer may (for example) have to allow an employee to perform modified duties, or may have to provide an ergonomic work station or allow flexible hours, or whatever else it takes to allow the employee to work within his or her limitations.

In housing accommodation, the details are different but the result is the same; the landlord must attempt to accommodate the tenant’s disabilities so that he or she can live in the unit. It may be as simple as a wheelchair ramp, or it may be something more sophisticated. 25 In all cases where the duty to accommodate is engaged, there needs to be a frank exchange of information.

The person seeking accommodation must disclose to the provider that accommodation is required, with sufficient detail to allow the provider to consider whether it is capable of accommodating, or whether on the contrary to do so would be an undue hardship.

It is important to emphasize that where the Landlord is able to show that it would be a due hardship to accommodate the disability, either because of the expense or the disruption to other tenants, then the duty has been met and the Tenant faces the unenviable choice of moving out and seeking accommodation elsewhere, or simply putting up with the less than ideal situation. 26 I state all of this because I believe, at its root, this is a case where the Tenant was seeking a considerable degree of special accommodation without making sure that the Landlord - and in particular those people at a level higher than the local rental agent and property managers - fully understood what it was being asked to do.

In the result, the Landlord did not provide the accommodation that the Tenant was looking for, and was generally unsure of why the Tenant continued to complain about the state of the apartment. Moreover, the Landlord never had a chance to consider whether it was even capable of accommodating this Tenant. 27 To further complicate matters, it is my view that the Landlord was less than diligent in some of the efforts it took to address complaints, while on the other hand the Tenant became hyper-sensitive to her apartment and hyper-critical of the Landlord and the efforts of its agents to appease her.

In the end result, the dispute has become much larger than the basic facts would have predicted and it is harder and harder to see how it can be resolved in a way that satisfies anyone. 28 If there is anything to be learned from this dispute, it is that both parties would have benefited from a more open conversation about what the Tenant required to make her apartment safe and comfortable for someone in her condition. The Tenant’s claims

29 The specific jurisdiction of the Director - and by extension my jurisdiction on appeal - is found in sections 17A of the Residential Tenancies Act : 17A An order made by the Director may (

a) require a landlord or tenant to comply with a lease or an obligation pursuant to this Act; (

b) require a landlord or tenant not to again breach a lease or an obligation pursuant to this Act; (

c) require the landlord or tenant to make any repair or take any action to remedy a breach, and require the landlord or tenant to pay any reasonable expenses associated with the repair or action; (

d) order compensation to be paid for any loss that has been suffered or will be suffered as a direct result of the breach; (

e) terminate the tenancy on a date specified in the order and order the tenant to vacate the residential premises on that date; (

f) determine the disposition of a security deposit; (

g) direct that the tenant pay the rent in trust to the Director pending the performance by the landlord of any act the landlord is required by law to perform, and directing the disbursement of the rent; (

h) require the payment of money by the landlord or the tenant; (

i) determine the appropriate level of a rent increase; (

j) require a landlord or tenant to comply with a mediated settlement. 30 With those powers in mind, I will embark upon an examination of the case. The Facts 31 The Tenant was leaving a home ownership situation and looking for an apartment in early July of 2009 when she heard of the availability of this particular unit, #229, in the building at 95 Highfield Park Dr. She was shown the unit by one of the Landlord’s leasing agents. The apartment was evidently in very poor condition. The Tenant believes, though it has not been proved to me, that the apartment had previously been occupied by drug dealers.

The Tenant testified, and I have no trouble accepting, that the apartment reeked of tobacco smoke and that measures would have to be taken, and were promised, to get the apartment “rent ready.” 32 I note at this point that, according to the Landlord’s records, the apartment had been vacant since the end of April 2009 and had already been painted in its entirety. According to the Tenant, when she was shown the apartment she asked that it be completely painted because the walls were coated with the remnants of smoke. The uncontested evidence is that the Landlord agreed to do so,

which suggests to me that the paint job already done was perfunctory, at best. It is at this juncture that there ought to have been a conversation that drove home the point that this Tenant required a more meticulously clean apartment than simply one that was “rent ready” by the Landlord’s usual standards. 33 Although no paperwork was created to formalize this, it appears that the Tenant was initially supposed to take occupancy for August 1, 2009. It quickly became apparent that this deadline would not be met.

Other things had to be done including, most significantly, the tearing up of all of the carpeting and replacing it with new, laminate flooring. In the end, the paperwork was created for a tenancy that started on September 1, 2009. 34 A standard form of lease was signed on August 12, 2009 and provided for rent in the amount of $685.00 per month.

The Tenant was in receipt of a rental subsidy from Metro Regional Housing Authority, topping up the $535.00 that she was allocated for accommodation under her provincial disability benefits. 35 The Tenant did not take full occupancy, according to her evidence, until early January 2010, which (if accurate) means that she paid rent for four months without getting the full benefit of what she was paying for. The Landlord disputes this entirely, but in the alternative points to evidence which suggests that she was substantially in occupation by late October, or at least by early December.

So it is either two, three or four months. 36 The Tenant testified that she was forced to live elsewhere because the apartment was not habitable for someone in her condition. She was pressing for further painting as a way to mask the tobacco odour, which was problematic for her. Other minor repairs or replacement of items were needed, such as replacing carpeting with laminate flooring, replacing the stove and range hood, replacing a counter-top etc.

At one point, after the laminate flooring had been put down, some workers had (inexplicably) been sent into the unit with instructions to apply a highly toxic chemical stripper, which the Tenant says was not only unnecessary but also made the environment uninhabitable. 37 During that time she had been forced to keep her pet cat in the apartment, as it was not welcome in her temporary accommodation, and her practice was to visit every few days to feed it, change the litter box and spend a bit of time with it. She also came by the apartment as certain work was done, or supposed to be done by the Landlord.

According to her evidence, she had moved in most of her belongings and had them sitting on tarps in the middle of the floor, awaiting work to be done. 38 The Landlord claims not to have been aware that she was not actually living in the apartment. I find this difficult to believe. 39 I should note that, despite the Tenant’s obvious unhappiness with how things were progressing, during those first few months the tone in her many email communications with the Landlord was, for the most part, respectful and patient.

She tried to give credit where it was due. 40 The Tenant eventually filed her complaint to the Director on December 12, 2009, which came before the Residential Tenancy Officer on February 2, 2010 for a mediation session. In anticipation of that session, the Tenant prepared a lengthy written submission, which she regarded as her Complaint. She attended with her MLA, Trevor Zinck, acting as her representative. 41 The Tenant came expecting a hearing. The Residential Tenancy Officer insisted on attempting to mediate the dispute, which is his statutory mandate.

The Tenant was a reluctant participant. 42 There is nothing which suggests that the Residential Tenancy Officer was seeking to address - or had even attempted to come to grips with - all of the Tenant’s many grievances, as contained in her lengthy written complaint. Understandably, but in retrospect perhaps unwisely, he attempted to zero in on what he thought were the deficiencies that continued to trouble the Tenant. The Landlord claimed to be frustrated and confused, not knowing precisely what were the alleged deficiencies.

As such, the mediation on February 2, 2010 concentrated on the Residential Tenancy Officer’s effort at arriving at a comprehensive deficiency list.

43 A document was created titled “ Full itemized list of all concerns relating to 95 Highfield Park Drive, Unit 229, Dartmouth, NS ”. That document (Ex. D-13 before me) contains 16 items.

It further states clearly at the bottom “ both parties agree that this is a full and comprehensive list of all repairs requested by [the Tenant] on February 2, 2010 .” It is then signed by all parties, including the Tenant. 44 The idea was for these items to be attended to within a short period of time, after which the matter would be back before the Residential Tenancy Officer. 45 The Landlord’s position is that this document best represents the state of where things stood as at that date, and takes issue with the Tenant presenting her much greater catalogue of grievances. The Tenant places a very different

interpretation on this document. She says that it was a partial list of some of the more urgent matters, but that everything which was contained in her lengthy brief to the Residential Tenancy Officer was still technically in issue. 46 Normally I would have a lot of difficulty accepting this position. Words mean what they say. "Full itemized list of all concerns” means just that. “Full and comprehensive list of all repairs requested” means just that. But all of the surrounding circumstances point to something else.

There is no credible basis to believe that the Tenant was abandoning her claims, including claims for compensation for the time that she was not fully moved into her apartment. It appears to me that the Tenant was swept up in the Residential Tenancy Officer’s effort to reduce the dispute to something manageable, and that she could not have appreciated the meaning that would be ascribed to these words.

As such, it would be unfair to hold her to this list as a comprehensive statement of the outstanding issues at that time. 47 Even so, the Tenant continued to treat the complaint as an open-ended process into which any and all grievances could be rolled, no matter when they occurred. This created something of a moving target.

The Residential Tenancy Officer who was slated to hear the matter in November 2010 was trying, at least, to place something of a cap on what could be included, by placing a deadline on the Tenant to particularize her complaint, as she most likely understood that without such a deadline the list of grievances would continue to grow. 48 As noted, the Tenant refused to participate in the hearing. What are the claims? 49 I confess that I have been extremely challenged to identify, isolate and understand the claims that are still outstanding. Some of them are trivial.

Others seek relief which is far outside my jurisdiction. 50 While there are many specific items claimed, the largest or most significant claims, as I see them, are these: a. A return of rent or abatement for the time when the unit was not being fully occupied by the Tenant, with other related claims. b. Claims associated with the fact that the unit was allegedly never fully off-gassed, with the result that the Tenant claims she has been unable to use the heating system. c. A claim that the Landlord is improperly denying her the right to use her own portable washing machine. Rent abatement

51 I am left in a state of some uncertainty as to when, precisely, the Tenant fully moved into the apartment. Reading some of her emails, one might have thought she was in much before January 1, 2010. Giving her every benefit of the doubt, because I believe her to be essentially truthful, I am prepared to find that she was unable to occupy the unit for four months.

As I have already stated, the Landlord’s effort to get the apartment ready for her were less than diligent. 52 As to how much rent she should be refunded, the facts are that she was paying $535.00 out of her pocket while Metro Regional Housing Authority was topping it up to $685.00. That agency is not a party to this proceeding and the Tenant has no basis to claim this money on their behalf, let alone to receive it and keep it. Accordingly the Landlord owes her a rebate of $2,140.00.

I will deal with interest later. 53 The Tenant also claims reimbursement for the $2,000.00 which she paid (in cash and kind) for alternate accommodation. I believe this claim is misconceived. If she receives back the rent being paid for the subject unit, then it is proper that she absorb what it cost her to live elsewhere. To give her back that money would be double compensation. That claim is disallowed. Problems with off-gassing 54 The Tenant testified that she has basically not used the heating system in her apartment because the few times that she tried, it created fumes that made her sick.

She believes that the heat causes the accumulation of years of tobacco residue to be released. In order to stay warm, or at least not freeze, she has used supplementary heat sources including a medical sauna and her oven. She also bought some area rugs to blunt the effect of the cold floors, and some inexpensive fleece blankets. 55 There are a number of ways that she wants this addressed. She has asked for reimbursement for the cost of the rugs and blankets, and for additional electricity costs which she has incurred by using electric heat instead of the heat which was otherwise supplied and included in her rent.

She has also asked for an allowance which would permit her to stay in a motel for a few days while the heating system is turned on and the off-gassing is finally (after two winters) allowed to occur. 56 I have a great deal of difficulty with this claim, for several reasons. For one thing, I have trouble with the proposition that turning on the heating system for a few days will solve whatever problem is really affecting the Tenant. The evidence does not satisfy me on this point.

I do not understand the rational connection between the heating system in the building and the release of tobacco fumes that allegedly is the problem. If there is indeed a deposit of years of tobacco smoke and odours which has merely been painted over, there is no reason to believe that a few days of heat will fully release it and render the environment safe of such odours or emissions. Furthermore, the Tenant has been pumping some heat into the unit, and has already been through two summers where the interior temperature has been as high as it would be if the heating system was turned on.

Logically, either the problem of off-gassing has already been resolved (although the Tenant may not know it because she won’t turn on the heat) or running the heating system for a couple of days would not solve anything. 57 The Tenant has the onus of proving that the Landlord has not provided a habitable apartment, or not provided necessary amenities.

I am unable to find that she has proved this claim and disallow her claims for extra electrical cost, carpets, blankets, or the cost of a motel respite while the heating system is run. 58 I will add that I would see no harm in the Tenant trying to run the heat for a few days, but I cannot find a legal basis to hold the Landlord responsible for putting her up elsewhere. The washing machine issue 59 This issue is related to a complaint that the hot water in the unit was (for a time, anyway) scalding hot.

The Landlord conceded that there have been problems with the hot water and says that it has been extensively examined by engineers. As a temporary measure, on advice, the Landlord has attempted to prohibit or discourage the use of personal washing machines or dishwashers which, because they draw more hot water than might otherwise be drawn by the tenants, may exacerbate the current problem.

60 Under its leases the Landlord’s approval is required for tenants to use personal washers. It is not a prohibition per se .

It is generally understood that the power to approve or forbid something like a personal washer, must be exercised in good faith and not arbitrarily or in a discriminatory fashion. 61 The Tenant claims that there are other tenants using personal machines, which the Landlord may not be aware of, or at least which are not being forbidden. 62 The Tenant says she needs to use her own washer because the machines in the coin-operated laundry are contaminated with scented products from other users, which are transferred to her laundry causing her distress. 63 In my view, the Landlord is being unreasonable in its refusal to allow the Tenant to use a personal washer for her clothes and bedding.

The evidence satisfies me that the Landlord is being less than diligent in seeking a more durable solution. Moreover, there is a palpable degree of discrimination in its refusal to allow the Tenant to use one, when there are apparently others already doing so. It would make sense if the Landlord determined that only a few could be used, and set about determining which tenants had the greatest need.

It has not done that at all. 64 I am of the view that the Landlord is in breach of the lease by using its power of approval in a discriminatory manner, and I am ordering the Landlord to allow the Tenant to use a personal washing machine in her apartment.

Other claims 65 There are a considerable number of other claims, which I will set out in something of a table form - in no particular order - the items (extracted from the brief) with my disposition. 66 As a general comment, I will say that many of the claims are being disallowed on the basis of what the law calls “remoteness.” To be allowed, any form of damages must always be causally connected to the breach of contract or other duty, but even so the law does not compensate every consequence in the causal chain.

Lines are drawn, and where the particular consequence is considered too unforeseeable, or too far down the chain, it is said to be too remote to be considered. 67 Another theme that follows is the concept of triviality. Where objectively speaking a matter is so small or unimportant to engage the machinery of the law, as a matter of policy the law refuses to provide a remedy. This is expressed in the Latin maxim de minimis non curat lex - which translates as “the law is not concerned with trivialities.” As I have said, it is an objective consideration.

Obviously the Tenant believes these things are important, and will not take kindly to anyone characterizing her complaints as trivial, but Claimants often lose perspective and it is the Court’s objective view that must prevail. relief requested disposition door lock changed free of charge, knob tightened, deadbolt fixed, Chain/latch to be added to balcony door Although there have been problems with the locks, there is not sufficient evidence that the unit lacks a functioning lock. The Landlord has no obligation to supply a chain to the balcony door.

Electrical outlet in small room needs to be repaired by qualified electrician; have electrician check all plugs There have been problems with some electrical outlets, leading to electrical shocks. It appears that all but one of them has been dealt with. The last one should be repaired by the Landlord, or at least checked out, if it has not already been done. Paint under cabinets in kitchen after washing them I am not prepared to order any more painting which, at this point, would be cosmetic only.

Paint balcony window-frame, door and bottom deck, replace planks for main balcony support and paint floor planks - were not painted before moving in I am not prepared to order any more painting which, at this point, would be cosmetic only. Repaint entry door closet as waxers have wax dripped on it This is also cosmetic and/or a trivial cleaning issue which the Tenant can either ignore or look after herself. Replace rusty nails in shower rod curtain rod This is a trivial item.

Repaint entire unit in 4 years I have no jurisdiction to force a Landlord to do something in the distant future without knowing what the circumstances would be at that time. Beading coming off in small room This is at most a trivial, cosmetic item which I am not prepared to order. Bathroom and kitchen have peeling paint spot-touch ups This is at most a trivial, cosmetic item which I am not prepared to order. Enforcement of good behaviour-noise/peaceful enjoyment

(329) The evidence as to noise in this other unit on a different floor is insufficient for me to make any order. The Tenant would have her remedies on an ongoing basis if the problem persists. Do an official IN inspection The Tenant believes there has never been a proper “in” inspection. Whether that is true or not, I do not believe that I have any jurisdiction to force one, and moreover I am not convinced that it would have any value.

Replace 2 closet doors (broken as collateral damage to other issues of 95/229 -electrocuted and door issues) This relates to two separate incidents where the Tenant’s son lashed out in anger or frustration and caused damage to the unit.

While this has some remote causal connection to deficiencies, it is the kind of remote damage that would not have been foreseeable and I do not hold the Landlord responsible. $ 111.30 for son's plane ticket change (surgery change date) I regard this as another instance where there is a remote causal connection, but the result was not reasonably foreseeable and I am not willing to hold the Landlord responsible. $ 81.35 car rental for son's airport pickup because of flight change.

Same as above. $136.25 van rental b/c unit was not done combined with toxic fumes and illness x 2 rentals (August 20/21 and August 26/27) This claim was not well enough explained and is not substantiated. $101.25 for electric TV outlet issues This claim was not well enough explained and is not substantiated. Access NS.

December 31 $28.20 (plus interest) This claim was not well enough explained and is not substantiated. computer backup due to electric outlet issue/no protection $61.50 (plus interest) The evidence does not satisfy me that the electrical service in the unit caused any damage to the Tenant’s computer, or at least not in any way that reflects upon the Landlord as opposed to Nova Scotia Power. Power surges are a known threat to computers which is why people are encouraged to use surge protection.

Furthermore the Tenant’s theory that this somehow caused her computer to develop a virus is illogical, as virus issues arise because of infected files downloaded by the user. $79.10 bailiff services to require a STAY b/c unit was not done as This is too remote. Because the Tenant was delayed in obtaining occupancy, she evidently had to take measures to be allowed to stay where she had been, but was being removed from. The Landlord could not have known that she would need to involve a bailiff and the courts to be allowed to overstay her time.

$44.85 computer reformatting due to previous issue I have already dismissed this item above. $14.94 curtain rod broken by Oxford staff I am not satisfied that the Landlord was responsible for this alleged item. compensation for total time (storage issue not including car rental) since August 7 hours @ 9.65= $ 67.55 This item seeks payment to the Tenant at the minimum wage rate for time which she says she spent because she was denied the use of space in a storage room. I can find nothing in the lease that promises storage space.

Although it appears that there was some dispute or misunderstanding about storage there is insufficient evidence to hold the Landlord responsible to compensate the Tenant. 5 plants @10.00 plant = $50.00 (

b) damaged dry flower arrangement $10.00 I am not satisfied that the Landlord was responsible for this alleged item. mirror $14.95 I am not satisfied that the Landlord was responsible for this alleged item. missing phone card $20.00 The Tenant basically accuses the Landlord or its agents of stealing a card, based only upon the fact that she couldn’t find it. This is not proven. broken vinegar bottle $5.00 This is a trivial item, and moreover not proved.

Nova Scotia Power @1.18 @127 days+149.86 This appears to be based on the theory that the Tenant used more electricity than she otherwise would have done, because she was not using the heating system. I have already disposed of that above. 7) Telephone Basic Services 68.22 (August- Oct;Nov-Dec) +94.94=$163.16 The Tenant contends that she had to keep a basic phone service in place during the months that she was no occupying the unit. There is no evidence that she was paying any other phone, and as such this was not a loss to her.

Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec rent 690.00 x 4= $2760.00 This has already been dealt with. Cash Rent to Patricia Mugridge August 27 -Oct 31 2009 $1000.00 This has already been dealt with.

Labour in lieu of rent payment for November and December 2009 - does not include 3 weeks in January 2010 $1000.00 This has already been dealt with. medical sauna installed 11/22/09 b/c movers no longer had time due to Barb/storage issue $40.00 I am not satisfied that the Landlord was in breach of any lease obligations that may have caused this expense. extra half hour paid to movers b/c they had to wait b/c of Barb/ storage issue $43.00 I am not satisfied that the Landlord was in breach of any lease obligations that may have caused this expense. door blocker for drug /ciggie/mice $12.00 I am not satisfied that this small measure was a necessary consequence of any breach by the Landlord of its lease obligations. gas/bus trips to unit for check ins/cat since August 28 every second day @ approx 32 trips=$96.00 I have already found that the Tenant is entitled to a rent rebate for September through December 2009.

It is reasonable to compensate her for this expense as she tried to work with a difficult situation. 2 fleece blankets for warmth 23.00 This has already been dealt with above.

emails costs at 5.00 each (previous 178 plus 18 -Nov-plus 10 for Taylors/BBB)=206x5= $1030.00 There is no basis in law to hold the Landlord responsible for the time a Tenant spends writing emails, or engaging in any other type of communication with the Landlord. RTA amount for pain and suffering $100.00 The $100.00 general damages jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court arises under the Small Claims Court Act , and not the Residential Tenancies Act .

I do not believe I have such jurisdiction in this proceeding. suggested rental abatement for specified time for immeasurable inconvenience and deliberate lack of landlord cooperation causing me unnecessary hardships This is a related claim, seeking money at large because of the way that the Tenant believes she has been treated by the Landlord. While I have no doubt that the Tenant believes that the Landlord’s actions are personally targeting her, I am not convinced that this has been so one-sided as to merit any type of compensation, assuming I had the jurisdiction to order it.

I believe the Tenant has contributed to creating a dysfunctional relationship and must accept some responsibility for how this usually routine relationship has come totally off the rails. NSPower rebatement 181 days @ 1.18 = $ 213.58 x 2 years This has already been dealt with above. Rent to be reset at RSP amount of 652.00 - “eleven of my neighbours, of which only 4 are DCS recipients, all pay under 655.00. This is not justified in any manner.” This claim is unfounded. The Tenant believes that other tenants are being charged a different rent.

Her rent is based on her lease, not some comparison with what others are paying. I have no authority to order a rent adjustment. Moreover, the evidence in support of this contention is sketchy and insufficient. Storage room to be completed by November 30 2010- amended to March 21 2011 I am not satisfied that there was any contractual obligation to supply access to a storage room.

Backstairs to be repaired: These stairs were first reported by me to Ralph Rice in February because I slipped down 2 stairs as they were not cleared from the ice and snow and I went to grab onto the railing but it was/is severely damaged from rotten wood and several nails are protruding. I understand that this has been reported to Halifax Regional Municipality and in my view is best dealt with as a safety item by that authority. I am also left unsure by the evidence as to whether or not there remains a real issue.

Fix laminate flooring I am not satisfied that there is any significant problem with the laminate flooring. Garbage fencing/unsightly premises: .... wooden slat walls have been falling down constantly which render these garbage locations unsafe and unsightly ..... Fix walls permanently to protect garbage/bins from blowing around and falling down. I disallow this item as it does not interfere with the Tenant’s use of her unit nor make it less habitable. It is a cosmetic issue, and/or possibly one for Halifax Regional Municipality.

Recycling bins for lobby There is no contractual obligation on the part of the Landlord to supply recycling bins. Memo System - Set up a system that I email Nichelle that I have received memos from Oxford-there is a pattern of claiming tenants receive info when they did not and such can have legal ramifications such as storage and the recent lease renewal issues with Wilma-no record of chatting with me yet she claimed to have done just that. The Tenant essentially wants me to police the flow of communication and set up a system that she believes will be more efficient.

I do not believe I have any such authority. guarantee that any future tenancy/repair items will be dealt with timely, diligently and professionally. I do not have the jurisdiction to make any meaningful order. These terms “timely, diligently and professionally” are all subjective. While I would expect that the Landlord would act in such a manner, any order that I would make would likely only provoke further controversy and litigation, and I decline to make any such order.

Interest and costs 68 In her submissions, the Tenant claimed interest at the rate she is charged by her credit card provider, and supplied elaborate calculations. I believe that she is entitled to some interest on the amounts owed to her, but at the statutory rate of 4%. I will calculate this below when I summarize the claims that have been successful.

69 Because she has been partially successful, I am prepared to award some costs to the Tenant. She has claimed a number of different things, including copying costs, registered mail, printing and binding costs and the filing fee. I am allowing a global amount of $150.00 to cover all costs including the $89.68 filing fee.

Summary 70 In the result, the Tenant is entitled to: a. $2,140.00 as a rent rebate b. $96.00 for transportation expenses c. $150.00 for costs. 71 The Landlord is further directed to: a. Verify and repair, if necessary, any electrical outlets that are identified by the Tenant as potentially dangerous. b. Permit the Tenant to utilize a personal washing machine in her unit. 72 The Tenant is entitled to interest at the annual rate of 4% on the sum of $2,236.00 from the mid-point between September 1, 2009 and January 1, 2010, namely from November 1, 2009 to the date hereof, which amount I calculate as $129.38. Eric K.

Slone, Adjudicator [1] The Appellant is referred to by her last initial as there are privacy issues and it is desirable to protect her identity.