Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Paul Guyot appealed a Rental Officer's decision terminating his tenancy at a subsidized senior citizens' facility in Yellowknife and ordering his eviction as of September 2, 2025.
   
• Grounds for eviction included persistent rental arrears and ongoing disturbances caused by the tenant's guests over several months, despite repeated warnings.
   
• Three witnesses called by the Respondent — two facility employees and another tenant — provided direct, consistent testimony about the disturbances at the rental hearing, which the Appellant did not attend.
   
• At the appeal, the Appellant disputed all allegations as fabricated, but the court found his credibility undermined by his own admission that he was present by phone at the rental hearing yet chose not to speak.
   
• Applicable standard of review for the factual findings of the Rental Officer was palpable and overriding error, as set out in Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 and applied in the Northwest Territories residential tenancies context.
   
• The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories dismissed the appeal, renewed the Eviction Order, and directed the Appellant to vacate the premises no later than March 6, 2026.

Facts of the case

Paul Guyot entered into a lease agreement with the Yellowknife Housing Authority on November 23, 2023, for subsidized premises located within a senior citizens' facility in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Under the arrangement, the tenant paid market rent with a subsidy applied based on income. Difficulties arose almost immediately after the lease was signed. By May 2024, the Appellant had accrued rental arrears, and starting in October 2024, the Respondent began receiving complaints from other tenants about noise and disturbances originating from Guyot's unit.

On November 19, 2024, the Respondent met with Guyot to address "multiple complaints" about noise and intoxicated guests. During that meeting, Guyot acknowledged that friends often stayed late at his premises and that arguments could arise when drinking occurred. He also acknowledged that young women came to his unit and consumed alcohol, though he maintained some were already intoxicated on arrival. He was warned at that meeting that a continuation of such behaviour could result in an eviction application. Complaints nonetheless persisted. Concerns emerged about individuals entering the building through Guyot's window and then loitering in the hallway, disturbing other tenants. A further meeting was held on April 10, 2025, at which Guyot was again warned about the disruptions caused by his guests.

On June 13, 2025, the Respondent sent Guyot a "final notice" letter referencing ongoing complaints about loud noise, frequent parties, high foot traffic, suspected drug-related activity, and intoxicated behaviour. On the same day, a "lease termination warning" was also sent regarding outstanding rental arrears, which at that point stood at $1,046. The Respondent applied to the Rental Office on July 2, 2025, seeking an order for rental arrears, termination of the tenancy, and an eviction order under the Residential Tenancies Act, RSNWT 1988, c R-5. Guyot was served by email on July 4, 2025, service being permitted under s 4 of the Residential Tenancies Regulations, R-052-2010.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The appeal was governed by the Residential Tenancies Act, RSNWT 1988, c R-5. The Act imposes obligations on tenants to pay rent on time and to refrain from disturbing the landlord's or other tenants' possession or enjoyment of the rental premises. Where a Rental Officer finds a breach of these obligations, sections 41(e) and 43(3) of the Act authorize orders terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant. Section 87 of the Act provides for appeals of Rental Officer decisions to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.

Reasoning and analysis

The rental hearing took place on August 13, 2025. Guyot did not appear at the hearing, though he later disclosed during the appeal that he had been present by phone but chose not to speak out of fear. The presiding Justice, Sheila M. MacPherson, found this explanation puzzling and inconceivable given Guyot's evident willingness to articulate strong objections to the allegations during the appeal proceedings. The court found that Guyot had been properly served and that it was appropriate for the hearing to proceed in his absence.

At the hearing, the Rental Officer heard from three witnesses called by the Respondent: two employees of the Yellowknife Housing Authority responsible for managing the facility, and a fellow tenant who had personally observed disturbances. Their testimony was consistent and characterized by direct, personal knowledge of the incidents described. One witness testified to having observed one of Guyot's guests sleeping in the laundry room and watching Guyot attempt to wake her. The same witness recounted seeing people entering and exiting the building through Guyot's window and Guyot's guests kicking at his door to gain entry. That witness also expressed a belief that Guyot was selling drugs, though the Rental Officer noted there was no direct evidence of illegal activity and her decision was not influenced by that allegation.

The Rental Officer delivered her decision on August 13, 2025, and her Order on August 15, 2025, directing termination of the tenancy as of August 31, 2025, eviction as of September 2, 2025, and payment of arrears of $706. Guyot filed his appeal on August 27, 2025, asserting the decision was based on false allegations and was "mainly an attack from one individual who creates lies and false incidents." On September 5, 2025, the Rental Officer's order was stayed pending the appeal. On October 30, 2025, the Respondent filed further evidence of ongoing disturbances, including a complaint received on September 18, 2025, about individuals continuing to use the window to access Guyot's premises, and an RCMP attendance at the unit regarding an intoxicated guest.

The appeal was heard on January 30, 2026. The applicable standard of review for the Rental Officer's factual findings was palpable and overriding error, as confirmed by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, and applied in the Northwest Territories residential tenancy context in St Croix v Yellowknife Housing Authority, 2021 NWTSC 31, and Crozier v Northview Fund, 2024 NWTSC 7. The court reviewed the record and found that the evidence before the Rental Officer was not isolated to one witness, as Guyot claimed, but reflected consistent testimony from three individuals with personal knowledge. The disturbances had continued over many months despite repeated warnings, and the evidence indicated they persisted even after the Rental Officer issued her decision. With respect to the rental arrears, the court noted that while the absolute amount was modest, it represented several months of unpaid rent at a subsidized rate, and that timely payment of rent was an obligation under both the lease and the Act.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories dismissed Guyot's appeal, finding that he had failed to establish any palpable and overriding error in the Rental Officer's assessment of the evidence. The Respondent, Yellowknife Housing Authority, was the successful party. The court renewed the Eviction Order and directed Guyot to vacate the premises no later than March 6, 2026. No new monetary award was specified in the Supreme Court's order beyond the Rental Officer's earlier direction to pay arrears of $706.