LR25-59

Tenant appeal · compensation. Outcome: denied. The appeal is denied and the outcome of Order LD25-334 is confirmed.

Linked prior order: LD25-334

Order text

Date Issued: December 19, 2025 Dockets: LR25053 Type: Rental Appeal
INDEXED AS: Jason Grandison v Huynh Van Loanh
2025 PEIRAC 67 (CanLII)
Order No: LR25-59
BETWEEN:
Jason Grandison (the “Tenant”) Appellant
AND:
Huynh Van Loanh (the “Landlord”) Respondent
ORDER
Panel Members: Kerri Carpenter, Vice Chair
Murray MacPherson, Commissioner Compared and Certified a True Copy
(Sgd.) Michelle Walsh-Doucette Commission Clerk Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission

2
A. INTRODUCTION
1. This appeal was heard by the Commission on October 15, 2025, and asks the Commission to determine whether the Residential Tenancy Office (the “Rental Office”) erred in finding that the Tenant’s water bill compensation claim be denied.
B. BACKGROUND
2. This appeal concerns a rental unit located at 240C North River Road, Charlottetown, PEI (the “Rental Unit”). The Rental Unit is a multi-bedroom home that the Landlord owns.
3. On March 1, 2021, the Landlord and the Tenant entered into a written fixed-term tenancy agreement for the Rental Unit. The tenancy agreement then continued on a month-tomonth basis. Rent is $1,700.00, due on the first day of the month. On February 25, 2021, a $1,700.00 security deposit was paid.
4. On July 17, 2025, the parties participated in an earlier Rental Office hearing. The Landlord was ordered to pay the Tenant $8,300.00 because of two unauthorized rent increases, and the Tenant’s rent was set at $1,700.00 (Order LD25-264).
5. On July 24, 2025, the Landlord served the Tenant with a first Form 4(A) Eviction Notice with a vacate date of August 31, 2025, for repeatedly late rent payments (the “First
Notice”).
6. On July 28, 2025, the Tenant filed a first Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute (the “First Application”) with the Rental Office, disputing the First Notice.
7. On July 28, 2025, the Tenant filed a second Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute (the “Second Application”) with the Rental Office seeking compensation, which is determined in Order LD25-334.
8. On August 12, 2025, the Rental Office sent the parties notice of a teleconference hearing scheduled for September 4, 2025.
9. On August 22, 2025, the Landlord served the Tenant with a second Form 4(A) Eviction
Notice with a vacate date of October 1, 2025, for repeatedly late rent payments (the “Second Notice”).
10. On August 22, 2025, the Landlord served the Tenant with a third Form 4(A) Eviction Notice with a vacate date of October 1, 2025, for subletting the Rental Unit without the Landlord’s consent (the “Third Notice”).
11. On August 29, 2025, the Tenant filed a third Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute (the “Third Application”) with the Rental Office, disputing the Second and Third
Notices.

3
12. On September 4, 2025, the Tenant, the Landlord, the Landlord’s representative, and the Landlord’s witness participated in a teleconference hearing before the Rental Office.
13. On September 10, 2025, the Rental Office issued Order LD25-334 which denied the Tenant’s compensation Claim.
14. The Tenant appealed Order LD25-334 on September 29, 2025.
15. The Commission heard the appeal on October 15, 2025, by way of telephone conference.
The Tenant, Jason Grandison, attended the hearing. The Landlord, Huynh Van Loanh, attended the telephone hearing. Danny Moase (Moase) attended the telephone hearing as witnesses for the Landlord.
16. The applicable legislation is the Residential Tenancy Act, cap. R-13.11 (the “Act”).
C. DISPOSITION
17. The appeal is denied and the outcome of Order LD25-334 is confirmed.
D. ISSUES
18. Does the Tenant’s claim for compensation (related to water bill payments) have merit?
E. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
19. The Tenant testified that in Commission Order LR25-49 it was found that the Landlord’s agent had approved four occupants for the Rental Unit. The Tenant submitted that Order LD25-334 had considered the matter of the water bill based on only one approved occupant in the five-bedroom home. The Tenant submitted that as additional occupants were in fact approved, the Landlord should have paid the water service as part of the rent as water was an included service in the tenancy agreement. The Tenant submitted that the Landlord should not have required the Tenant to pay the water bill. Accordingly, the Tenant submits that he should be reimbursed for his water bill payments. Additionally, the Landlord did not apply under the Act to discontinue providing water service and therefore he was responsible to pay the water bill.
20. In response to questions from the Commission, the Tenant stated that the Landlord required him to pay the water bill beginning April 2024. The Tenant acknowledged that he had operated a car detailing business at the Rental Unit in 2023. He stated that he only operated the business in the summer of 2023 for three months. He stated that he did not operate the car detailing business at the Rental Unit in 2024 as he received a notice from the City of Charlottetown requiring him to “cease and desist”. The Tenant acknowledged that at the time there were five people living at the Rental Unit including himself. He stated that at first he used a pressure washer from a garage nearby then later used water from the Rental Unit but he was not using very much water.
21. The Landlord testified that he initially agreed to include the water bill based on the Tenant as sole occupant of the Rental Unit. The Landlord then discovered the water bill to be very high. The Landlord later discovered that the Tenant had other people living in the Rental Unit and he also discovered that the Tenant was operating a car washing service.

4
22. Moase testified that the Tenant had been operating a carwash at the Rental Unit for a year or longer and at one time the Tenant had as many as eight people living in the Rental Unit.
F. ANALYSIS
23. The Tenant has attempted to persuade the Commission that he should be reimbursed for the water bills which the Landlord required him to pay. The Tenant states that Order LD25-334 is in error, as that Order denied the water bill reimbursement claim. In that Order, the Tenant was found to be the sole approved occupant. By contrast, the Commission found in Order LR25-49 that the Landlord’s agent had agreed to the Tenant’s request to have three housemates. The Tenant’s argument appears to be that the water bills were reasonable for several people living together, and thus the Landlord should have paid all of the water bills.
24. Order LR25-49 states in part:
29. The Commission finds that the text messages in Exhibit A-4 establish
that the Landlord, through his agent, had in fact consented to the Tenant having three housemates which were represented as relatives. Indeed, common sense would dictate that one person renting a five-bedroom home would likely have roommates or housemates rather than have four empty bedrooms. The Commission notes that it appears the Rental Office did not have the benefit of the February 20 to 22, 2021 text messages contained in Exhibit A4.
25. However, it appears to the Commission that the Tenant, in the present appeal, relies on paragraph 29 quoted above without considering paragraphs 30 and 31 of Order LR25-49:
30. … Landlord approval of three specified housemates for the entire
Rental Unit does not constitute approval of five (Ly’s testimony) or six (Cohoon’s testimony) housemates in the main area of the Rental Unit plus Cohoon and his spouse in the basement.
31. Accordingly, the Commission finds that, while the Landlord had through
his agent consented to the Tenant having three identified housemates, there is no evidence that the Landlord consented for additional housemates to be added. Indeed, based on Exhibit E21, it is apparent that the breach of the terms of consent occurred only four days after the Tenant signed the tenancy agreement with the Landlord. While the Commission varies the facts set out in Order LD25-333, that variance hinges on Exhibit A-4 which the Rental Office apparently did not have. In any event, the Commission finds that the Landlord did not agree to so many housemates, some of whom were not identified to him, and therefore the Commission agrees with the Rental Office that the tenancy agreement between the Landlord and the Tenant shall be terminated. …
26. Three complete water bills were in evidence before the Commission:
• Exhibit E-27, page 121 – October 8, 2023 to January 8, 2024 Average usage: 978.49 litres per day

5 • Exhibit E-14, page 46 – January 8, 2024 to April 8, 2024 Average usage: 1211.96 litres per day • Exhibit E-27, page 120 – April 9, 2024 to July 7, 2024 Average usage: 1527.78 litres per day
27. The Tenant had several more housemates than his three relatives approved by the Landlord’s agent. The Tenant was also operating a water intensive commercial business, for a portion of the tenancy, out of the Rental Unit without permission from the Landlord. The Commission takes notice that the two most recent water bills in evidence were high for four adults. Given such breaches of the tenancy agreement, even as modified from one occupant to four by consent of the Landlord’s agent, the Commission agrees with the findings in Order LD25-334 that the Tenant’s claim should be rejected. Accordingly, the Commission denies the appeal and confirms the outcome of Order LD25-334.
G. CONCLUSION
28. The appeal is denied and the outcome of Order LD25-334 is confirmed.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The appeal is denied.
2. The outcome of Order LD25-334 is confirmed.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 19th day of December, 2025.
BY THE COMMISSION:
[Sgd. Kerri Carpenter] Kerri Carpenter, Vice Chair [Sgd. Murray MacPherson] Murray MacPherson, Commissioner
NOTICE
Subsections 89 (9), (10) and (11) of the Residential Tenancy Act provides as follows:
89. (9) A landlord or tenant may, within 15 days of the
decision of the Commission, appeal to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the Island Regulatory and

6 Appeals Commission Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. I-11, on a question of law only.
(10) Where the Commission has confirmed, reversed or varied an order of the Director, the landlord or tenant may file the order with the Supreme Court.
(11) Where an order is filed under subsection (10), it may be enforced as if it were an order of the Supreme Court.