The defendant was charged with two counts under the Residential Tenancies Act: knowingly threatening or interfering with a tenant to induce her to vacate, and knowingly interfering with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the premises.
The tenant complained of water damage, mould, pest infestations, and power interruptions during her tenancy.
The court found that the defendant's letter demanding the tenant vacate was a demand letter rather than a threat, and dismissed the first count.
However, the court found the defendant guilty of the second count, determining that the ongoing water damage problem constituted an interference with reasonable enjoyment, and that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in addressing the issue despite knowing it persisted.
