Manitoba Housing Date:, 2010 MBCA 42

Citation: Manitoba Housing Date: 20100426 Authority v. Pipoli, 2010 MBCA 42 Docket: AI 10-30-07341 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) N. PipoliMANITOBA HOUSING AUTHORITY ) on his own behalf ) (Landlord) Respondent ) T. J. Björnson ) for the Residential ) Tenancies Commission- and - ) ) A. J.

Ladyka ) for the ManitobaNORMAN PIPOLI ) Housing Authority ) (Tenant) Applicant ) Chambers motion heard: ) April 22, 2010 ) ) Judgment delivered: ) April 26, 2010 FREEDMAN J.A. 1 This is an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Residential Tenancies Commission (the Commission), pursuantto s. 175(2) of The Residential Tenancies Act, C.C.S.M., c. R119 (the Act). 2 The applicant was a tenant in property owned by the respondent. The respondent obtained an order of possession requiringhim to vacate the property, which he did. He left personal property in the rental unit.

He was told by the respondent that he could do sofor a stipulated time period. He did not remove the property within that time period. The respondent disposed of the property. 3 The applicant then claimed compensation for the property in the amount of $150,000. The Residential Tenancies Branchestablished pursuant to the Act dismissed his claim. On appeal, the Commission found that the respondent did have an obligation tocompensate the applicant. It determined that the compensation should be $1,500.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal that decision. 4 The Act provides the applicant with a very limited opportunity to appeal a decision or order of the Commission to thiscourt. Appeals are limited to questions of jurisdiction or law, and an applicant needs leave to appeal. Three factors are considered by ajudge in determining whether to grant leave. See Pelchat v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., 2006 MBCA 90, 40 C.C.L.I. (4th) 46 (atpara. 2): …. 1.

The question must be truly one only of jurisdiction or of law, and not one which “involve[s] the court in an assessment or analysisof conflicting factual issues” (Shersty v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (2002), 43 C.C.L.I. (3d) 35, 2002 MBCA 108 (Man. C.A. [InChambers]), at para. 2, Fillion v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (2004), 10 C.C.L.I. (4th) 182, 2004 MBCA 61 (Man. C.A.), andcases cited therein). 2.

The case must be one that warrants the attention of the court. “The issue must be one of importance; not just for the immediatecase, but in determining other similar disputes which are apt to arise in [the] future” (Wuziuk v. Manitoba (Director of Social Services)(No. 2) (1979), (MB CA), 3 Man.R. (2d) 81 (Man. C.A.), at para. 7). 3. There must be an arguable case of substance; i.e., one with a reasonable prospect of success (see Lejins v. Manitoba PublicInsurance Corp. (2003), 50 C.C.L.I. (3d) 1, 2003 MBCA 95 (Man. C.A. [In Chambers])).

5 See also 4469667 Manitoba Ltd. v. Thomas, 2009 MBCA 20; Manitoba Housing Authority v. Bertram, 2006 MBCA 49,205 Man.R. (2d) 61; Procak v. Hayward, 2006 MBCA 84, 205 Man.R. (2d) 150, and 3391397 Manitoba Ltd. v. Winnipeg City Assessor(1998), (MB CA), 126 Man.R. (2d) 63 (C.A.). 6 In the last-mentioned case the Chief Justice said (at para. 5): …. The court cannot be concerned with reassessing findings of fact.

Unless a legal question can be identified without the courtinvolving itself in reweighing or reconsidering factual issues, leave to appeal will not be granted. …. 7 The applicant candidly acknowledges that the only issue is the amount of compensation. He is unhappy with what wasawarded him and thinks it should have been more. 8 The reasons of the Commission state: The tenants submitted an inventory of property they claimed was destroyed. The landlord submitted, among other documents,photographs of the rental unit as at February 25, 2009, which reveal a number of the belongings.

The tenants submitted no evidence as tothe value of any of the property destroyed. . . . . . The Panel was satisfied on the evidence that a substantial portion of the abandoned property had no monetary value and the landlords[sic] were entitled to dispose of it in accordance with the Act. The Panel was satisfied, however, that the Inventory prepared by the landlord was not accurate and that there were items of valueabandoned by the tenants, including a computer, a table and chair set, a wall clock, a hutch and some electronic equipment, all of whichare clearly visible in the photographs.

An item of value is one in which the value to be obtained by sale exceeds the cost of storage anddisposal (see subsection 106.1(4)). The Panel was satisfied that these items clearly met the test. . . . . . In that the Panel is satisfied that the landlords’ [sic] breach of the Act resulted in the loss of valuable property, the Panel must determinefair and reasonable compensation for this loss. There was very little evidence as to the value of the items disposed of.

Based on the photographic evidence, the Panel found that damages in the amount of $1,500.00 would be fair and reasonablecompensation for the landlords’ [sic] breach of the Act. [emphasis added] 9 The determination of value of property clearly involves factual considerations. The issue of appropriate compensation isone of either fact alone or, at best, mixed fact and law. It is certainly not a question of law alone as would be required for leave to begranted. No jurisdictional issue is raised. 10 Accordingly, leave to appeal is denied. I make no order as to costs. J.A.