Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Procedural fairness was the central issue, focusing on whether the Appellant had adequate notice and opportunity to respond to new affidavit evidence before her hearing.
   
• Timing of service was disputed, since the Appellant was told evidence required three days' notice by email but received a 36-page affidavit only one day before the hearing.
   
• Bias was alleged against the Rental Officer because he had adjudicated an earlier hearing between the same parties, though the Appellant had succeeded in that prior matter.
   
• Sufficiency of evidence was challenged regarding findings that the Appellant failed to notify the landlord about pets, kept an unclean premises, and disturbed quiet enjoyment.
   
• Hearsay and anonymous correspondence formed much of the evidentiary basis for allegations of illegal activity and disturbances at the rental premises.
   
• Applicable standards of review, drawn from Vavilov and Housen, determined how closely the court would scrutinize the Rental Officer's factual and legal conclusions.
   

Facts of the case

Stephanie Twiss, the Appellant, held a tenancy agreement with Darrell Dean, the Respondent, beginning in March 2025 for premises located in Hay River, NT. This appeal arose from a decision of the NWT Rental Officer dated August 25, 2025, terminating the tenancy as of October 8, 2025, and evicting Twiss as of October 9, 2025. The dispute had a lengthy background: in April 2025, Twiss applied to the Rental Office alleging that Dean withheld vital services, namely water, and refused to accept rent. A decision dated April 26, 2025 found a valid tenancy existed, that Dean breached the Residential Tenancies Act by withholding vital services, and ordered a 25% rent abatement until services were restored. Dean initially appealed that decision but abandoned the appeal on August 8, 2025, after restoring water service.

On July 31, 2025, Dean filed a new application seeking termination of the tenancy and eviction, citing unpaid propane and power bills, police involvement, fire hazards, unauthorized occupants and pets, and property neglect. Supporting materials included a neighbour's letter about two fires at the premises on June 25, 2025, a letter from the RCMP noting three prior calls to the address, an unsigned letter from the Hay River Watch Society, and a photo of emergency vehicles. Twiss submitted seven support letters, a medical letter regarding her son's special needs diagnosis, communications with the RCMP and third parties about utility issues, and a reference from a former landlord. An expedited hearing was scheduled for August 22, 2025. On August 21, 2025, Dean's counsel served Twiss with a 36-page affidavit by email and by taping it to her door; the parties agreed the latter method was improper. Twiss, uncertain whether the email service met the required notice period, contacted the Rental Office and was instructed to acknowledge receipt, which she did. At the hearing, the Rental Officer allowed the affidavit into evidence because Twiss had acknowledged receipt, without advising her that she could request an adjournment.

The Rental Officer issued Reasons for Decision and an Order on August 25, 2025, requiring Twiss to pay rent on time, repair damages, cease causing further damage, maintain cleanliness, reimburse utility costs within 25 days of invoicing, and stop disturbing quiet enjoyment, while also ordering Dean to stop disturbing Twiss's enjoyment of the premises. The order also terminated the tenancy effective October 8, 2025, and directed eviction on October 9, 2025. Twiss filed her appeal on September 8, 2025, and the court granted a stay of the termination and eviction portions of the order on October 3, 2025, pending appeal. The appeal was heard on December 12, 2025.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The appeal was governed by the Residential Tenancies Act, RSNWT 1988, c R-5. Relevant provisions included section 33(2), addressing the landlord's obligation not to withhold vital services; sections 41(4), 42(3), and 43(3), which permit the Rental Officer to terminate a tenancy and order eviction upon a breach of tenant obligations; section 75, requiring the most expeditious method of determination consistent with natural justice; section 84.1(1), requiring reasons for decisions; section 74(1)(f), allowing the Rental Officer to determine matters of procedure; and section 87, providing the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Section 42(1) addresses a tenant's obligation not to cause damage through wilful or negligent conduct, while sections 43(1) and 46(1) address obligations not to disturb quiet enjoyment or permit illegal activity. Section 41(1) concerns timely rent payment, and section 14.1 concerns pet security deposits. The Residential Tenancies Regulations, R-052-2010, provide at section 4(4) that documents sent by email are deemed received three days after sending. The Rental Office's Expedited Hearing Policy permits scheduling an expedited hearing where there are immediate emergency or safety concerns, provided timelines and service otherwise comply with the Act and Regulations.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice MacPherson first addressed the standard of review, noting that where a statute provides a right of appeal without specifying a standard, the Housen v Nikolaisen framework applies, as clarified in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. Questions of law attract correctness review, while questions of fact or mixed fact and law attract the more deferential palpable and overriding error standard. The evidentiary issues on appeal were treated as mixed fact and law, attracting the higher deferential standard.

On procedural fairness, the court found that the Rental Officer recognized the affidavit contained new material yet advised Twiss only to acknowledge receipt, without informing her of her option to request an adjournment to prepare a response. Citing Dunsmuir v New Brunswick and the Supreme Court of Canada's endorsement of the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons in Pintea v Johns, the court held that decision-makers must ensure self-represented litigants understand their procedural options. The failure to do so was found to be a procedural error resulting in unfairness, sufficient on its own to justify allowing the appeal.

On the recusal issue, the court applied the presumption of impartiality described in St. Croix v Northwest Territories (Housing Corporation) and found no evidence that the Rental Officer's involvement in an earlier hearing between the parties displaced that presumption, particularly since Twiss had succeeded in that earlier proceeding. This ground of appeal was dismissed.

Turning to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court reviewed each finding underlying the termination order. On the pets issue, the court noted the Rental Officer's own hearing comments suggested no notification obligation existed absent a written tenancy agreement, yet his written Reasons found otherwise; counsel's reliance on section 14.1 was rejected because that provision addresses pet deposits, not a notification duty. On damages and cleanliness, the court found the Rental Officer's conclusion that there was merely "a possibility" of an unkept premises fell short of the balance of probabilities standard required under section 42(1), though Twiss's acceptance of responsibility for fire-related damage was acknowledged. On rental arrears and utilities, the court noted no breach of section 41(1) was found, rent was current as of the hearing, and confusion had arisen from post-hearing communications from Dean's counsel regarding payment methods. On the alleged breach of the April 2025 order, both parties were found to have breached it: Twiss by late rent payment and Dean by failing to restore vital services and, without cited evidence, disturbing her quiet enjoyment. On disturbances and illegal activity, the court found the evidence relied upon — including anonymous Hay River Watch correspondence and RCMP attendance records (the record states RCMP attended on three occasions in the Respondent's application materials but on four occasions in the judgment's later evidentiary summary) — did not establish disturbances. The court also found the Rental Officer failed to articulate an evidentiary basis for finding a breach of section 43(1), apart from the isolated fire incident of June 25, 2025 (referenced elsewhere in the judgment as June 22, 2025) involving Twiss's special needs child.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court concluded that the Rental Officer's decision was undermined by a lack of procedural fairness in failing to advise Twiss of her option to seek an adjournment, by Reasons that did not articulate the evidentiary basis for key findings, by misstatement of the burden of proof, and by reliance on obligations not found in the Act. Twiss, the successful party, had her appeal allowed, with the orders terminating her tenancy and directing her eviction set aside; her separate ground alleging bias on the part of the Rental Officer was dismissed. The court ordered that Twiss is entitled to her costs of the proceedings, fixed at $750.00.