Self-admitted ‘shady landlord’ dinged twice in N.S. heating disputes

A Truro landlord who arranged it so renters in one apartment paid for the electricity to heat the water in their place and two other units – including his own – in the same building has been ordered to pay the former tenants nearly $4,000.

Jessica Gill and Kyle Pearce signed a month-to-month lease on the place in October of 2020 agreeing to pay Jeremy Zwicker $1,075 in rent per month, which included oil heat but not electricity.

“The parties agree, however, that during the tenancy, unbeknownst to the claimants, the claimants were also paying for electricity used to heat the water for the other two units in the building including the respondent’s apartment,” Julien S. Matte, a Nova Scotia small claims court adjudicator, said in a written decision released Monday.

Gill and Pearce took their case to small claims court, appealing an order of the province’s director of residential tenancies.

“In addition, outside building plugs and power used to run the heating fan for the building’s heating system were wired to the appellant’s electrical panel. The claimants also claim damages for the oil running dry and leaving them without heat on more than one occasion.”

Landlord ‘misled’ tenants 

Zwicker “was unequivocal in his admission that he misled the appellants but justified it by suggesting that the rent was set lower than the market rate to account for the additional costs to the appellants,” Matte said.

“The respondent admits that he did not disclose to the appellants that given the building’s wiring they would pay for the hot water for all three units. The respondent went as far as accepting that his actions were shady, and he might better be referred to as a ‘shady landlord’ rather than the moniker of slumlord suggested by the claimants during cross-examination.”

Zwicker also accepts that he let the oil tank run dry, once leaving Gill and Pearce without heat for a week, and a day or so more than once.

Matte found that Zwicker “intentionally misrepresented the state of affairs and induced (Gill and Pearce) into signing a lease, knowing that the terms of the lease did not reflect the reality of the building’s wiring.”

That meant they paid for “the costs of heating hot water for two other units including that of the respondent as well as electricity used for outside plugs and the building’s heating fan,” said the adjudicator.

When they made their arguments in front of the director of residential tenancies, all of the parties agreed Gill and Pearce spent a total of $4,224.15 on power, Matte said, noting that’s since been updated to $4,913.56.

‘Let the oil run out’

The director accepted Gill and Pearce’s position that they should get 75 per cent of that back, said the adjudicator.

“In addition, both parties agree that the respondent let the oil run out of the oil tank on more than one occasion. The director calculated the loss at $164.50.”

The director of residential tenancies rejected the former tenants’ claim for interest.

Gill and Pearce tried to get 75 per cent of the electricity bill paid back, plus 15 per cent of the $5,043 they’d paid in rent, with one per cent monthly interest tacked on.

The landlord didn’t object to the way the director of residential tenancies calculated that Gill and Pearce should get 75 per cent of the money back that they shelled out for power.

But he “later advanced positions of $1,100 as fair compensation,” said the adjudicator.

‘Shortcomings’ on both sides 

“The court finds that considering the shortcomings of each side’s calculations, 66 per cent of total electricity spent ($4,913.65), roughly accounts for the hot water used by the other two units as well any electricity used by the heating fan and outside plugs. The court awards $3,275.73 or about $100 per month reduction during the thirty-two-month tenancy period.”

Matte also awarded the two tenants $200 “for the intermittent periods where the (Zwicker) failed to ensure that oil was sufficient to heat the building contrary to his obligations under the lease.”

The adjudicator nixed Gill and Pearce’s claim to get 15 per cent of their rent back.

“The award of both the estimated overpayment of electricity and a market rental adjustment would amount to double recovery and is not permitted.”

The adjudicator ordered Zwicker to pay them 4 per cent interest, for total interest of $404.

“The order of the director is varied, and the respondent is ordered to pay the claimants $ 3,910.89 inclusive of costs,” Matte said.

In a separate case, the same adjudicator ordered Zwicker to pay Wright Brothers Plumbing $2,500. The landlord and the plumber got into a dispute after two Wright Brothers employees who were going to install heat pumps for the landlord quit on short notice.

Christopher Wright told the court “that after his two employees quit just prior to the intended installation, he quickly found replacement installers,” Matte said.

‘Prejudice against unionized employees’

But Zwicker “refused to move forward with (Wright’s) new employees as they were part of a union,” said the adjudicator.

“The Defendant did not want to have unionized employees on his property expressing a belief that unionized workers were not as efficient as non-unionized workers.”

Despite his misgivings, Zwicker later “admitted that shortly after, he hired the claimant’s former employees who had started a new company after quitting their jobs with the claimant,” Matte said.

Zwicker failed to prove breach of contract.

“The contract sets out the terms for installation of heat pumps and makes no representation as to whether the installers are part of a union or not,” said the adjudicator.

“The defendant’s prejudice against unionized employees is a personal preference not an enforceable term of the contract. The defendant’s admission that he soon hired the claimant’s employees suggests that the employees were enticed to leave their jobs. However, without more evidence such a finding would be speculative and is not needed to support a conclusion that the defendant breached the contract when he refused to continue with the installation as per the terms of the contract.”