Background:
Paul Feraro, the landlord, appealed an Office of Residential Tenancies (ORT) decision ordering him to pay $500 in security deposit and $50 in costs to tenants Michael Bethel, Mitch Bellefleur, and Jason Snarr. The tenants vacated on May 31, 2024, and Feraro failed to return the deposit or provide timely notice of intent to retain it, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

Legal Issues and Rulings:

1. Compliance with Section 32(1) of the Act:
   The court ruled that Feraro did not comply with the Act's mandatory requirements to either return the deposit or issue timely notice of intent to retain it. Non-compliance barred him from retaining the deposit, regardless of any alleged damages.

2. ORT’s Consideration of Property Damage Evidence:
   The court found no error in the ORT’s focus on procedural compliance rather than evidence of property damage. It ruled that the ORT acted within its jurisdiction by enforcing the strict procedural rules outlined in the Act.

Costs and Award:
The ORT had awarded $550 ($500 security deposit + $50 costs) to the tenants. The Court upheld this award and dismissed the appeal without adding new costs.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the ORT’s decision as consistent with the law and legislative intent, emphasizing strict compliance with security deposit procedures to safeguard tenants’ financial interests.