Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review sought to overturn Residential Tenancies Officer’s decision awarding security deposit to landlord.

• Tenant caused damage to property by driving into garage door and admitted responsibility.

• Residential Tenancies Officer’s decision was presumed reasonable under administrative law standards.

• Tenant failed to establish any error of law or lack of jurisdiction in the decision.

• Court found the decision coherent, rational, and justified based on the evidence.

• Application dismissed with costs awarded against the tenant.

Facts of the case

Khalihah Este-Shehu entered into a lease for a rental unit managed by Cedar Camp Projects Inc. and paid a $1,250.00 security deposit. In November 2023, she drove her vehicle into the underground parking garage door, causing damage, and later admitted fault. After the lease ended in May 2024, Cedar Camp filed a claim to recover the security deposit to cover repair costs totaling $1,574.86. A Residential Tenancies Officer held a hearing in November 2024 and found that Cedar Camp's claim was substantiated. The Officer awarded Cedar Camp the full amount claimed, although a clerical error mentioned $950.00 instead of the $1,250.00 sought.

Ms. Este-Shehu filed for judicial review, arguing that repairs were not communicated in a reasonable time and that withholding information caused financial hardship. She did not attend the rescheduled hearing of her application and failed to properly respond after receiving email notice. Nevertheless, the court proceeded to hear the matter based on the record and submissions by the landlord’s counsel.

Outcome of the case

The Court of King’s Bench reviewed the Residential Tenancies Officer’s decision under the reasonableness standard established in the Vavilov case. It found the decision was reasonable, coherent, and properly grounded in the facts and applicable law. The tenant’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act clearly required her to repair damage she caused or risk forfeiture of her security deposit. The court concluded there was no error of law and no lack of jurisdiction by the Officer. Consequently, the judicial review application was dismissed. Costs of $1,000.00 were awarded to Cedar Camp Projects Inc., payable by Khalihah Este-Shehu.