LR25-21

Landlord appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed. The appeal is dismissed and Order LD25-174 is confirmed. The tenancy agreement continues in full force and effect.

Linked prior order: LD25-174

Order text

Date Issued: June 20, 2025 Dockets: LR25028 Type: Rental Appeal
INDEXED AS: Red Sands Properties Inc. v. Stephanie Robichaud
2025 PEIRAC 23 (CanLII)
Order No: LR25-21
BETWEEN:
Red Sands Properties Inc. (the “Landlord”) Appellant
AND:
Stephanie Robichaud (the “Tenant”) Respondent
ORDER
Panel Members: Gordon MacFarlane, Commissioner
Pamela J. Williams, K.C., Chair 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 June 2, 2025, and asks the Commission to determine whether the Residential Tenancy Office (the “Rental Office”) erred in finding that the tenancy agreement continues in full force and effect.
B. BACKGROUND
2. This appeal concerns a rental unit located at 110 – 1963 Rte 1A, Central Bedeque, PEI, (the “Rental Unit”). The Rental Unit is an apartment in a multi-unit building (the “Residential Property”).
3. On March 1, 2025, the parties entered into a written, month-to-month tenancy agreement.
An $875.00 security deposit was paid at the beginning of the tenancy. Rent of $875.00 is due on the first day of the month.
4. On April 2, 2025, the Landlord served the Tenant with a Form 4(A) Eviction Notice with an effective date of May 2, 2025 (the “Notice”) for the following reason:
You or someone you have allowed on the property have engaged in illegal activity on the property.
The particulars of termination stated:
On March 29, [the Tenant] was caught on security footage breaking into the communal coin-operated laundry machine provided to the tenants at the property.
This illegal activity is a violation of the tenancy agreement and has resulted in significant disruption and damage to the property. As a result, the tenancy is being terminated effective May 2 2025.
5. This effective date is automatically changed to May 31, 2025, under section 54 of the Residential Tenancy Act (the “Act”).
6. On April 11, 2025, the Tenant filed a Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute with the Residential Tenancy Office (the “Rental Office”) disputing the Notice.
7. On April 17, 2025, the Tenant filed an amended Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute (the “Application”) with the Rental Office.
8. On May 15, 2025, the Tenant and the Landlord’s representative (the “Representative”) participated in the teleconference hearing before the Rental Office.
9. On May 20,2025, the Residential Tenancy Office issued order LD25-174, which found that the Landlord had not established a valid basis for ending the tenancy and the tenancy agreement continues in full force and effect.
10. The Landlord appealed Order LD15-174 on May 21, 2025.

3
11. The Commission heard the appeal on June 2, 2025, by way of telephone conference.
The Landlord, Red Sands Properties Inc. was represented by Kyle Gillis and the Tenant, Stephanie Robichaud, attended on her own behalf.
12. The applicable legislation is the Residential Tenancy Act, cap. R-13.11 (the “Act”).
C. DISPOSITION
13. The appeal is dismissed and Order LD25-174 is confirmed. The tenancy agreement continues in full force and effect.
D. ISSUES
14. Is the evidence sufficient, on the civil standard of a balance of probabilities, to establish that the tenancy should be terminated pursuant to clause 61(1)(e) of the Act?
E. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
15. The Representative testified that he had submitted a number of videos to the Rental Office which show that the Tenant committed an illegal activity with a non-tenant. The Representative described the Tenant as being a party to an offence, aiding a person, or abetting a person. The Representative further testified that he filed two additional videos for the appeal. He proceeded to describe his interpretation of what happens in the various videos. In his opinion, the Tenant was acting as a lookout.
16. The Representative stated that the person who was shown on the video to be breaking into the coin system on the washing machine has been charged by the police. The Representative stated that he is not aware of the outcome of the charges.
17. The Tenant testified that she is a “night person” and 5:00 a.m. is a typical time for her to do laundry. She stated that she did know the person breaking into the washing machine because he would visit another tenant. She stated that this person was in the laundry room when she went down to do laundry. She then went back upstairs to get her change.
She acknowledges doing laundry with the person present in the laundry room. She did laundry that day on and off all day. She stated that the video was in clips and if there was an entire video it would have shown her paying to do her laundry. She stated that a full hour or even half hour of uncut video would explain what happened much better.
18. The Tenant testified she is aware of the video cameras and thus it would have been “stupid” of her to help the person who was breaking into the washing machine. She testified that she ultimately spoke with the police over the phone, told them what she knew and no charges were pressed against her. She has not been asked to be a witness. The Tenant testified that the person who was breaking into the machine asked her about the camera and the Tenant replied that she did not know. The Tenant stated that she felt awkward about the situation.

4
F. ANALYSIS
19. The Commission dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision set out in Order LD25-174. The Commission’s reasons follow.
20. Clause 61(1)(e) reads:
61. Landlord’s notice for cause
(1) A landlord may end a tenancy by giving a notice of termination where one or more of the following applies:
… (e) the tenant or a person permitted on the residential property by the tenant has engaged in illegal activity that (i) has caused or is likely to cause damage to the landlord’s property, (ii) has adversely affected or is likely to adversely affect the quiet enjoyment, security, safety or physical well-being of another occupant of the residential property, or (iii) has jeopardized or is likely to jeopardize a lawful right or interest of the landlord or another occupant;
21. The videos before the Commission are short clip style videos that do not bear a time or date stamp on the video. The clips switch between a camera in the laundry room itself and a camera in the hallway stairs area outside the laundry room. The essence of the Representative’s testimony is that the Tenant was acting as a lookout on behalf of the person who broke into the washing machine’s coin unit.
22. Ending a tenancy is a serious matter not to be undertaken lightly. The Landlord’s position is that the Tenant was assisting in a crime and the video clips are offered as evidence.
23. While the Commission understands the Landlord’s interpretation that the video evidence suggests the Tenant was assisting in the crime; the Commission is not satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that this is the case. We do accept that the evidence is clear the Tenant witnessed the crime. The Tenant testified that she felt awkward about the situation. However, the mere suggestion or possibility that the Tenant was assisting in a crime is not enough; the burden of proof is on the Landlord and the Commission must be able to find, on the civil standard of a balance of probabilities, that the Tenant did in fact assist in the crime, before clause 61(1)(e) can justify an eviction of the Tenant. In other words, the Commission must find that it was more probable than not that the Tenant assisted in the crime.
24. The Commission finds that the video evidence, even with the two additional videos not seen by the Rental Office, is not sufficiently compelling on the balance of probabilities to support an eviction of the Tenant under 61(1)(e) and accordingly the Commission agrees with the findings set out in Order LD25-174. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and
Order LD25-174 is confirmed.
25. The Commission takes notice of the frustration of the Representative who acted on the Landlord’s behalf. The Commission is of the view that the Representative had a sincere

5 and honest belief that the Tenant was assisting in a crime and based his belief on viewing the various video segments. However, the Commission must make an objective assessment based on the evidence presented and mindful of the balance of probabilities.
G. CONCLUSION
26. The appeal is dismissed. The evidence presented does not support, on the balance of probabilities, an eviction pursuant to clause 61(1)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, Order LD25-174 is confirmed and the tenancy may continue.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Order LD25-174 is confirmed.
3. The tenancy agreement continues in full force and effect.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 20th day of June, 2025.
BY THE COMMISSION:
[sgd. Gordon MacFarlane] Gordon MacFarlane, Commissioner [sgd. Pamela J. Williams, K.C.] Pamela J. Williams, K.C., Chair
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 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.