Eviction halted due to suspicious timing

Tenants whose lease was terminated after they made repeated complaints about the neighbours have had the termination notice overturned by the Tenancy Tribunal.

The unnamed tenants live in the middle unit of a property with a shared driveway. Details naming the tenant or the address of the property have been suppressed under changes to the tenancy law that came into effect on February 11. The saga began when the tenants of unit 2 complained to the property manager about their neighbours in unit 3 using the shared driveway and parking cars outside the double garage that separated the two properties.

But the unit 3 tenants complained about a security camera in unit 2 overlooking the parking area in front of the garage but also had a limited view of their unit 3.

After multiple emails addressing the complaints the landlord issued a breach notice to each of the tenants. The notice to unit 3 concerned driving fast down the driveway and playing loud music from their cars. The notice to unit 2 was for the security camera. The landlord later withdrew the notice to the tenants of unit 2.

There was also a meeting between the tenants of both units and the property manager, which seemed to result in an agreement resolving the tenants’ issues, the tribunal said. However, not long after this apparent truce, the tenants of unit 2 received a 90-day notice terminating their tenancy.

The property owners, Daniel Gardiner and Melanie Gardiner, told their property manager to serve the termination notice because the property was ‘‘in need of well overdue maintenance upgrades and our builder has stipulated they would need the property vacant to be able to complete the work required’’.

Melanie Gardiner told the tribunal that the work included renovations required to comply with the Healthy Homes Regulations such as the installation of an oven hood and an extractor fan in the bathroom. When questioned by the tribunal, Melanie Gardiner admitted that the remedial work she had outlined could be completed while the tenants stayed in the property.

The timing of the notice raised the suspicion that it was motivated, at least in part, by the earlier complaints, said adjudicator Ross Armstrong, who declared the tenancy notice invalid.

He dismissed the unit 2 tenant’s claim the termination of tenancy was racially motivated.

There was also a meeting . . . which seemed to result in an agreement.