Memorandum

SUBJECT: Case laws regarding failure of tenant to prepare unit for pest control treatment

As per your instructions I researched into the case laws where the Board as awarded relief to the

landlord for failure of tenant to prepare their unit for pest control treatment. The brief summary

is as follows:

Section 33 of RTA dictates that the tenant has responsibility for ordinary cleanliness of the rental

unit. In addition to this, section 34 of the Act also provides that the tenant is responsible for the

repair of undue damages caused by their negligent conduct.

Section 64 provides that the landlord may provide termination notice to the tenant for

interference with the reasonable enjoyment of residential complex by the landlord or other

tenants.

I was able to find two cases where the tenancy was terminated under section64 and the tenant

was ordered to pay costs for damages.

In case of, File No. TEL-85791-17, the Board determined that the tenant failed to properly

prepare the rental unit for pest control treatment. In this case, the Tenants cancelled scheduled

pest control treatments and even refused entry for an inspection. In addition to this, during the

same period, the tenant complained to the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division ('MLS')

about pests. The Board was satisfied about the failure on part of tenant and ordered the tenant to

move out of the rental unit. In addition to this, the tenant was also ordered to pay to the landlord

the costs incurred to repair damage to the rental unit.

In a similar case, File No. SWL-03618-17, the tenant failed to comply with the landlord’s

repeated requests to clean up the unit for pest control treatment. Tenant failed to prepare his unit

for pest control by not cleaning the grease and garbage in his unit, and by leaving his dog in the

unit, thus delaying the spray applications of pesticide. In addition to this the tenant also caused

damages to the unit. N5 notice was served pursuant to section 62 and section 64. The Board

while considering the responsibility of the tenant under section 33 of RTA terminated the

tenancy agreement and ordered the tenant to move out. The Board was satisfied that the tenant

did not void the notices. In addition to this, the tenant was also ordered to pay costs of replacing

the damaged property.

In both the cases, the Board considered provisions of section 83 and found that it would be unfair

to postpone or provide relief from eviction.

In addition to this, the Board's Interpretation Guideline 5, Part D titled ‘Breach of

Maintenance Obligations’ can be applied to the situation of termination of the tenancy and

eviction of the tenant. This guideline says in part:

“The Member may also choose this remedy if the condition of the unit is so poor as to

threaten the safety of the tenants or threaten their well-being. However, ordinarily the

landlord should have had a reasonable opportunity to rectify the situation before

termination is ordered”.

However, it must be noted that these guidelines are only persuasive in nature and is not binding

on the Board.