The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for the return of prepaid rent and deposits.
The tenant had signed a lease that explicitly exempted the premises from the Tenant Protection Act but also contained a schedule stating the Act would prevail in the event of a conflict.
When the tenant attempted to sublet and the landlord failed to respond within seven days, the tenant terminated the lease in accordance with the Act.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the lease patently ambiguous.
Applying the principle of contra proferentem, the court construed the ambiguity against the landlord who drafted the document, holding that the tenant was entitled to rely on the termination provisions of the Act.
