How does the rental office handle drug claims against tenants?

The NWT’s rental office plays an important role in Scan legislation currently being drafted by the territorial government.

In the NWT, the rental office acts as a court handling disputes between landlords and tenants. Rental officers have powers like issuing eviction orders to tenants or withholding rent if landlords don’t address maintenance issues.

If the territory’s Scan legislation becomes law, the GNWT will create a new unit of Scan officers. They won’t be police officers but they’ll be tasked with investigating complaints about things like drug-related activity at homes in small communities.

The Scan officers will have the power to either bring applications to the rental office if they think someone should be evicted, or help landlords do the same thing.

But whether alleged criminals are actually issued an eviction order will ultimately be decided by the rental officer.

That means how the rental office functions, and how it assesses cases, will become central to how Scan works.

With the new legislation on the horizon, Cabin Radio assessed a series of recent rental office decisions to understand how cases are handled when drug allegations are involved.

What kinds of evidence does the rental office look for? What kinds of order do rental officers usually issue? And in a civil court like the rental office – which requires a lower standard of proof than a criminal court – will a new Scan unit be likely to get the decisions it wants?

Conditional orders

In some cases where landlords make allegations related to illegal activity, the rental office does not simply evict people.

Often, the rental officer will issue a conditional order. This gives the tenant a chance. A conditional order basically says: you will be evicted, but only if you break the rules in the next few months. If you stay out of trouble, the eviction order goes away.

In one Yellowknife-based case heard at the rental office in August, a landlord sought an eviction order due to disturbances in a seniors’ complex that allegedly threatened the safety of tenants.

A representative of the landlord testified the tenant had let other people into the complex “at all hours” and those guests had used common areas reserved for residents. The landlord presented an anonymous handwritten letter alleging the tenant had allowed illegal activities to take place within the building.

While the rental officer noted the numerous reports of disturbances, ultimately they were not sufficiently convinced the unwanted visitors were all connected to the tenant – nor that the alleged illegal activities were directly connected.

As a result, the rental officer issued a conditional eviction order. Yes, the tenant would be eventually evicted, but only if there were new reports of disturbances caused by the tenant in the four months that followed.

In a separate case in Hay River, a landlord started by asking for a conditional termination of the tenancy agreement – but changed their mind during the hearing, escalating the request to an unconditional termination and eviction.

The landlord alleged the tenant was responsible for a number of noise complaints. There were also allegations of drug trafficking and an unauthorized person occupying the residence. The landlord referred to photos they had of a physical altercation involving the tenant.

There had been a stabbing at the residential complex, but the incident was still under investigation by RCMP and it wasn’t clear if the tenant had been involved.

While the rental office found the tenant had disturbed others’ “quiet enjoyment” of the rental premises, the rental officer again issued a conditional order because the tenant didn’t have a long history of disturbances, despite the landlord seeking a more immediate and terminal outcome.

In another case in Hay River, a landlord sought a conditional order to end a tenancy agreement and the rental office concurred.

The landlord complained of an aggressive dog on the premises, “heavy traffic” at night, masked people entering the building and reports that a tenant’s guest was involved in illicit drug activity.

There had been previous orders in place between the landlord and tenant regarding the payment of rental arrears and past disturbances.

A representative for the landlord testified the tenant hadn’t complied with all past orders but did comply with those related to disturbances. At the time of the hearing, the representative said there hadn’t been any new reports in the prior six or so weeks.

As a result, the tenant received a conditional order with a chance to turn things around.

Sufficient warnings

Cases do exist in which the rental office reaches straight for an eviction order with no final warning.

In another case involving a seniors’ complex in Yellowknife (decisions usually obscure the names and addresses of those involved), the landlord’s request to end a tenancy agreement, order an eviction and order the tenant to pay rental arrears was granted.

The landlord presented a laundry list of allegations. The tenant had made loud noise after 11pm, they said, while intoxicated guests knocked on windows and doors “at all hours of the night.” People described as “young girls” were alleged to have become intoxicated in the apartment, while the tenant was said to have allowed guests into the complex who were suspected of stealing furniture from common areas and who slept in the laundry room.

The landlord detailed three instances over the course of several months where they issued warnings to the tenant about their behaviour and where the tenant promised to change.

Citing these warnings, the rental officer stated in their decision: “I am not confident that a conditional order would be successful, and I think it is important to act quickly to address concerns about safety at this complex.”

The decision gave the tenant until the end of the month to find another place to live.

Burden of proof

A key reason Scan legislation is attractive to the territorial government is the lower burden of proof. In theory, that might make a civil court more readily convinced to act. That, in turn, could mean quicker and more decisive action.

Critics, meanwhile, worry the process that Scan sets up can enable government overreach against already vulnerable people.

Some rental office rulings show the decision-makers already wrestling with the question of how much proof the office needs.

In a Yellowknife case, a landlord sought a tenant’s eviction after alleged disturbances and possible participation in illegal activities.

A representative of the landlord said cameras had captured an apparent drug transaction where a participant later entered the tenant’s unit.

There were also reports of security staff asking loiterers to leave who later entered the tenant’s unit.

The landlord’s representative spoke of high foot traffic in the building caused by the tenant or their guests letting people in, and of a stabbing taking place in the residence.

The rental office’s decision – which specifically discussed the level of evidence required – found there was reasonable evidence the tenant was participating in illegal activities.

“The act does not require the same burden of proof the courts require for illegal activities,” the rental officer stated in that decision.

“However, there must still be a balance of probabilities for illegal activities occurring and being the responsibility of the tenant in the rental premises or residential complex.”

Compensation for damages

In one of the more remarkable decisions analyzed, a rental officer ordered tenants of a Fort Resolution building to cover extensive repair costs at a unit they allegedly abandoned.

The total costs of the repairs was more than $33,000, all of which the rental officer found was supported by evidence and testimony.

Repairs included the replacement of windows and doors, repairs to the front landing, replacement of a stove and repair of a fridge.

The bulk of the cost – more than $15,000 – was associated with work to the building’s crawl space due to what was referred to as “fecal contamination.”

The tenants were under previous orders not to cause disturbances and not to carry out any illegal activities, or face the end of their tenancy agreement and eviction.

Ollie Williams contributed reporting.