Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case involved an appeal under the Residential Tenancies Act regarding lease assignment, subletting, rent arrears, and eviction.

• Mr. Puwai disputed his rental obligations after March 1, 2024, arguing the landlord’s refusal to consent to assignment was unreasonable.

• A prior Rental Officer’s decision, not appealed, justified the landlord's refusal due to a Protection Order.

• The Supreme Court admitted new evidence from both parties but found no legal or factual errors in the original ruling.

• Midwest Property Management was awarded costs taxed under Column 3, despite Mr. Puwai’s access to justice arguments.

• The court renewed the eviction order under its equitable jurisdiction to prevent duplicate proceedings.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and tenancy dispute

Cosmas Puwai signed a tenancy agreement in 2020 with Midwest Property Management for an apartment in Yellowknife. In February 2024, he renewed the agreement but soon requested to assign the lease. Midwest refused consent, citing an active Emergency Protection Order under the Protection Against Family Violence Act, which gave another family member exclusive occupation of the unit until May 26, 2024.

In the meantime, Mr. Puwai stopped paying rent and utilities. He applied to the Rental Officer to compel Midwest to allow assignment or subletting of the lease. In May 2024, the Rental Officer ruled he could assign the lease beginning June 1, after the protection order expired. Mr. Puwai did not follow through with the assignment and later sought consent to sublet instead, which was also refused. He again applied to a Rental Officer, while accumulating significant arrears and ceasing utility payments.

Rental Officer's decision

Following a hearing in August 2024, the Rental Officer found that Mr. Puwai remained bound by the tenancy agreement, had repeatedly failed to pay rent, and owed over $12,000 in arrears. The officer terminated the lease, denied permission to sublet, and issued an eviction order. The officer rejected Midwest’s request for alarm fee compensation but otherwise ruled in its favor.

Appeal and court’s analysis

Mr. Puwai appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, challenging the conclusions that he owed rent and utilities, that eviction was warranted, and that subletting should have been permitted. Justice A. Piché reviewed the matter and applied the appellate standards set out in Housen v Nikolaisen, holding that all questions involved mixed fact and law and therefore required a showing of palpable and overriding error.

The court admitted additional affidavits and communications from both parties, including updates from Midwest's regional manager and documentation of Mr. Puwai’s efforts to assign the lease. However, the judge found no errors in the Rental Officer’s conclusions. The earlier decision allowing assignment only after June 1 stood unchallenged, and the failure to assign or sublet after that date remained Mr. Puwai’s responsibility.

Court’s ruling and consequences

Justice Piché dismissed the appeal in full. The court upheld the termination of the tenancy and the eviction. It rejected Mr. Puwai’s argument that the tenancy had effectively ended in March 2024, reaffirming his continuing obligations. Midwest was awarded legal costs under Column 3 of the court’s cost schedule, with the court rejecting Mr. Puwai’s argument that his financial situation warranted an exception.

Finally, the court renewed the Eviction Order under section 27 of the Judicature Act, exercising its equitable jurisdiction to avoid forcing Midwest to return to the Rental Officer for a new order. Mr. Puwai was ordered to vacate the premises by June 16, 2025.