DEBBIE PROVENCHER Landlord (Appellant) - v. -, 2014 NSSM 25

Claim No: 425931 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES Cite as: Provencher v. Bennett, 2014 NSSM 25 BETWEEN: DEBBIE PROVENCHER Landlord (Appellant) - and - KARINDA BENNETT Tenant (Respondent) REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER BEFORE Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator Hearing held at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia on April 29, 2014 Decision rendered on April 30, 2014 APPEARANCES For the Landlord self-represented

For the Tenant did not attend (but provided written submission) REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER 1 This is an appeal by the Landlord from a decision of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated March 25, 2014, which followed a hearing on March 19, 2014. 2 The matter before the Residential Tenancy Officer was an application by the Tenant for a return of her security deposit of $300.00. 3 The Residential Tenancy Officer noted in her decision: 2. The Landlord maintains a security deposit in the amount of $300.00 which the Tenant is requesting be returned to her.

Based on the evidence presented at the time of the hearing the Landlord did not file a security deposit claim as required under section 12(6)(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act nor did the Landlord file a counter claim for damages that she was requesting . The Landlord is therefore to return the security deposit to the Tenant. (Emphasis added) 4 The Landlord filed an appeal of this decision on April 1, 2014, returnable in this court on April 29, 2014.

In that appeal she seeks to retain the security deposit and claims additional amounts against the Tenant for alleged damage that she says the Tenant did to the premises. 5 The Tenant did not appear, although she filed a submission with documentary evidence. In that submission she explained that she has moved back to Alberta. 6 The difficulty that I have with this appeal is that the Landlord is attempting to raise claims (i.e. compensation for damage to the premises) that were not properly before the Residential Tenancy Officer.

The decision of the Residential Tenancy Officer made abundantly clear that the Landlord ought to have brought a counter claim for this relief, and that had she done so the hearing before the Residential Tenancy Officer would have considered those claims. 7 An appeal to the Small Claims Court does not substitute for filing an application at Residential Tenancies. One cannot simply bypass the first step. This court deals with appeals. If a matter has not been properly put before Residential Tenancies, there is nothing to appeal.

It may seem unduly technical but this is the correct result. 8 The Landlord advised the court that she had been advised by staff at Residential Tenancies that this was the correct procedure to take to have her claims considered. I have my doubts about whether such advice was given, but if it was, it was unfortunately incorrect. 9 I also appreciate that the fact that the Tenant has moved back to Alberta creates additional problems for the Landlord, but this cannot be helped. 10 In the result, the appeal against the order of the Director is dismissed, as it is clearly a correct order.

There is nothing that calls into question its correctness. The Landlord ’ s grievances against the Tenant were not properly put before the Residential Tenancy Officer and are accordingly not properly before this court. Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator