Pennell v Harrison-Gibb

The applicants, Pennell, were the lessors of a rental property, while the respondents, Harrison-Gibb, were the tenants. The dispute arose when the respondents sought compensation from the applicants for having to pay rent to live in uninhabitable premises. The applicants had sought leave to appeal a tribunal decision that awarded the respondents compensation for the rent paid. The tribunal had made findings of fact based on photographic and oral evidence and awarded the respondents $2035 in compensation. The applicants argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the tribunal had made a mistake of fact. The legal issues before the court were whether the decision was unreasonable, whether the tribunal had made a mistake of fact, and whether those findings of fact should be overturned.

The court held that the applicants had established that the decision was unreasonable and that the tribunal had made a mistake of fact. The tribunal had incorrectly assessed the quantum of rent reduction, which led to an overestimation of the compensation awarded to the respondents. The court found that the credit to the respondents’ rent account should be reduced by $1160.80, which represented the difference between the amount awarded by the tribunal and the amount that should have been awarded. The court also found that the applicants had not established that the tribunal had made a mistake of fact in finding that the premises were uninhabitable.

The court granted leave to appeal and set aside the original decision to award the respondents $2035. The respondents’ rent account was credited in the amount of $874.20, which represented the amount that should have been awarded. The credit was discharged by a payment by the applicants to the respondents of $874.20. The court held that the applicants had not established that the tribunal had made a mistake of fact in finding that the premises were uninhabitable, and therefore, the findings of fact should not be overturned.