LD25-411

Tenant application · eviction, rent arrears. Outcome: granted. The tenancy will end by the timeline below.

Linked prior order: LD25-389

Order text

Order of The Director of Residential Tenancy
Docket 25-986 November 26, 2025
INTRODUCTION
[1] This decision determines an application filed by the Tenant with the Residential Tenancy Office (the “Rental Office”) under the Residential Tenancy Act, cap. R-13.11 (the “Act”).
[2] The Landlords served an eviction notice to the Tenant seeking to end the tenancy. The Tenant disputes the eviction notice.
DISPOSITION
[3] The tenancy will end by the timeline below.
BACKGROUND
[4] The Residential Property is a five-bedroom, three-bathroom single-family home, owned by the Landlords. The Residential Property has a main-level which includes three-bedrooms and onebathroom and a lower-level which includes two-bedrooms and two-bathrooms.
[5] The parties disputed whether or not the lower-level of the Residential Property was included in the tenancy agreements.
[6] On August 29, 2025 the Tenant’s representative (the “Representative”) and the Landlords signed a Form 1 Standard Form of Tenancy Agreement with a fixed-term period of September 1, 2025 to August 31, 2026. Rent in the amount of $2,400.00 was due on the first day of the month. A $2,400.00 security deposit was paid. Electricity was not included in the rent (the “First Tenancy Agreement”).
[7] The First Tenancy Agreement stated:
The Landlord will rent to the Tenant, and the Tenant will rent from the Landlord, the following rental unit: Single Family Home Main Floor.
[8] On September 1, 2025 the Tenant and the Representative moved into the Residential Property.
[9] On September 9, 2025 the parties ended the First Tenancy Agreement by mutual agreement.
[10] On September 9, 2025 the Tenant and the Landlords signed a Form 1 Standard Form of Tenancy Agreement with a fixed-term period of September 1, 2025 to February 28, 2026 (the “Second Tenancy Agreement”). All the terms and conditions were the same from the First Tenancy Agreement.
[11] However, the Second Tenancy Agreement stated:
The Landlord will rent to the Tenant, and the Tenant will rent from the Landlord, the following rental unit: Single Family Home.
[12] The parties had a prior eviction dispute before the Rental Office.
[13] On November 3, 2025 the Rental Office issued Order LD25-389 denying an eviction and permitting the tenancy to continue.
[14] On November 4, 2025 the Landlords served the Tenant with a Form 4(A) Eviction Notice effective November 25, 2025 under subsection 60(1) of the Act for non-payment of rent (the “Notice”). The particulars of termination stated:
The Tenant hasn’t paid for October and November rent.

[15] On November 6, 2025 the Tenant filed a Form 2(A) Tenant Application to Determine Dispute (the “Application”) with the Rental Office disputing the Notice.
[16] On November 14, 2025 the Rental Office emailed the parties notice of a telephone hearing scheduled for November 25, 2025 along with a copy of the Application.
[17] On November 19, 2025 the Rental Office emailed the parties a fifty-four-page evidence package.
Included in the evidence package was the Director’s evidence, which was the previous Rental Office’s Order between the parties.
[18] On November 25, 2025 the Tenant, the Representative, the Landlords and the Landlords’ representative joined the telephone hearing for determination of the Application. The parties confirmed that they received the evidence package and confirmed that all evidence submitted to the Rental Office was included.
ISSUE
A. Does the evidence support the tenancy ending for non-payment of rent?
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
Legal Basis
[19] The Landlords bear the onus of proving their claim on a balance of probabilities. This means that there must be sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to find that the claim alleged is more likely correct than not.
[20] In Order LR24-64 the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the “Commission”) made the following comment regarding a landlord ending a tenancy (paragraph 21):
The termination of a tenancy is a serious matter and accordingly a Landlord seeking to evict a tenancy must put forward compelling evidence.
[21] More recently, in Order LR25-21 the Commission restated the seriousness of a landlord ending a tenancy (paragraph 22):
Ending a tenancy is a serious matter not to be undertaken lightly.
[22] The Landlords seek to end the tenancy under subsection 60(1) of the Act, which states:
A landlord may end a tenancy if rent is unpaid after the day it is due, by giving a notice of termination effective on a date that is not earlier than 20 days after the date the tenant receives the notice.
[23] For the reasons below, I find that the Landlords’ evidence supports ending the tenancy for nonpayment of rent. Accordingly, the Notice is valid and the Application is denied.
Summary of the Evidence
[24] The Landlords’ evidence was summarized and presented by the Landlords and their representative.
[25] The Landlords stated that the Tenant has not paid rent for October 2025 and November 2025.

[26] The Landlords stated that main level was mistakenly omitted from the Second Tenancy Agreement.
However, the Representative and the Tenant were present for signing both the First Tenancy Agreement and the Second Tenancy Agreement.
[27] The Landlords’ representative stated that the Tenant does not have an express right under the Act to withhold rent under subsection 19(1).
[28] The Tenant’s evidence was summarized and presented by the Representative.
[29] The Representative stated that the Landlords were paid $4,800.00 in September 2025. The Representative and the Tenant did not notice the word main level on the First Tenancy Agreement and believed the Residential Property included the lower-level. The Representative stated that he was aware a family member of the Landlords occupied the lower-level. The Representative stated that the Landlords allowed another person to move into a room in the lower-level. The Representative stated that the other person is paying $1,000.00 in rent. The Representative stated that he is paying the utilities for the Residential Property and is paying for the usage of the other people occupying the lower-level.
[30] The Representative stated that the rent should be reduced from $2,400.00 to $900.00. The Representative stated that the $1,500.00 reduction is based on the other occupant paying $1,000.00 and $500.00 for the Landlords’ family member living in the lower-level. The Representative stated that the family member did vacate the Residential Property at the end of October 2025. However, the other occupant is loud and disturbed the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. The Representative also argued issues with the condition of the Residential Property which aided in the calculations of the rent reduction request.
[31] The Representative stated that the express right to withhold the rent is based upon the Landlords changing the terms of the tenancy agreements.
Determination
[32] The parties’ evidence establishes that the Tenant has not paid rent for October 2025 and November
2025. What is in dispute is whether or not the Tenant has an express right under the Act to withhold the rent.
[33] Subsection 19(1) of the Act states:
A tenant shall pay rent when it is due under the tenancy agreement, whether or not the landlord complies with this Act, the regulations or the tenancy agreement, unless the tenant has an express right under this Act to deduct or withhold all or a portion of the rent.
[34] In Order LR25-30 the Commission commented on subsection 19(1) (paragraphs 41 & 42):
Nevertheless, the Residential Tenancy Act is clear at subsection 19(1) that tenants are required to pay rent when it is due, whether or not the landlord complies with the Act, the Regulations or the tenancy agreement. There is no express right under the Act that authorizes the Tenants to deduct or withhold rent that is applicable in this case.
In other words, the Tenants were obligated under the legislation and the tenancy agreement to pay rent as specified in the agreement, despite their allegations that the landlords had breached their quiet enjoyment.
[35] I disagree with the Tenant’s position that if a landlord changes a term of a tenancy agreement that a tenant is provided an express right to withhold rent under the Act. Subsection 19(1) clearly requires the Tenant to pay rent regardless of any alleged breaches by the Landlords. The Commission also made this determination in past decisions.

[36] I have reviewed the Act and I find that a tenant is only permitted to deduct overpayment of the security deposit from the rent under subsection 14(4) of the Act.
[37] I find that there are no other circumstances that provide the Tenant an express right to withhold or reduce the rent. Further, I find that there are no prior Rental Office decisions that permit the Tenant or the Representative to reduce any past or future rent under the tenancy.
[38] The Act provides the Tenant with a right to claim against the Landlords for an alleged breach of the Act, the Regulations or the tenancy agreement. In this case, the Tenant should have paid October 2025 and November 2025 rent in full when it was due, and then filed an application with the Rental Office seeking a determination and a return of rent.
[39] I find that the Tenant’s position that the Landlords changed the terms of the tenancy agreement is not supported by the evidence.
[40] The evidence establishes that the Tenant was present for and signed both the First Tenancy Agreement and the Second Tenancy Agreement. Further, the Tenant occupied the Residential Property for nine days before signing the Second Tenancy Agreement. In other words, I find that the Tenant would have been aware of the Landlords’ family member occupying the lower-level of the Residential Property. The evidence supports the conclusion that the Tenant was aware that the tenancy included only the main-level, and that the Tenant did not bring up any concerns while signing the Second Tenancy Agreement.
[41] I find that the Tenant did not pay October 2025 and November 2025 rent. The Tenant did not have an express right under the Act to withhold the rent for October 2025 and November 2025.
Therefore, I find that the Landlords have established a valid reason contained in the Notice for ending the tenancy.
[42] The Notice is valid and the Application is denied. The tenancy will end by the timeline below.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT
1. The tenancy will end between the parties effective December 3, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.
2. The Tenant and all occupants must vacate the Residential Property by this date and time.
3. A certified copy of this Order may be filed in the Supreme Court and enforced by Sheriff Services as permitted under the Act.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 26th day of November, 2025.
(sgd.) Cody Burke Cody Burke Residential Tenancy Officer

NOTICE
Right to Appeal
This Order can be appealed to the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the “Commission”) by serving a Notice of Appeal with the Commission and every party to this Order within 7 days of this Order.
If a document is sent electronically after 5:00 p.m., it is considered received the next day that is not a holiday. If a document is sent by mail, it is considered served on the third day after mailing.
Filing with the Court
If no appeal has been made within the noted timelines, this Order can be filed with the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island and enforced as if it were an order of the Court.