[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-279361-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":80,"doc-detail-279361-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","decision-dispute-codes-mndc-mnd-ff-introduction-preliminary-issue-jurisdiction","DECISION - Dispute Codes MNDC, MND, FF Introduction - Preliminary Issue – Jurisdiction","","DECISION addresses cross applications between a landlord and tenants concerning compensation for alleged damage or loss under the applicable residential tenancy framework. The tribunal first determined jurisdiction, requiring both parties to submit the tenancy agreement and the end of tenancy letter, and relied on identical copies. A key dispute concerned whether the agreement was excluded under the Act’s section 4(c) sharing exception for bathroom or kitchen facilities. Evidence issues affected credibility, and an excluded “estimate” dated before filing reduced reliance on the landlord’s documentation, leading to findings that the Act applied and jurisdiction existed to resolve both claims.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/","General",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/decision-dispute-codes-mndc-mnd-ff-introduction-preliminary-issue-jurisdiction/279361/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/decision-dispute-codes-mndc-mnd-ff-introduction-preliminary-issue-jurisdiction/279361.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Ezra","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-23","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":22},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What jurisdictional question did the tribunal address first?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"Whether the residential tenancy Act applied to the tenancy, requiring review of the tenancy agreement and end of tenancy letter when the Act’s applicability was challenged.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Why was the Act found to apply in this case?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The tribunal accepted the tenants’ version that they were not sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities with the landlord, and found a single occasion involving use of the oven for a birthday cake was insufficient to trigger the Act’s exclusion.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What happened to the landlord’s “estimate” evidence?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The tribunal excluded the “estimate” from consideration because it was not among the documents it had indicated would be accepted during the adjournment, and it raised concerns about reliability and whether it had been served on the tenants.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},279361,1790173071,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,118,123],{"id":84,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"general-158",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":127},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":124,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":26,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":33},1099514068035,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","DECISION  \nDispute Codes MNDC, MND, FF Introduction  \nThis hearing was scheduled to deal with cross applications. The tenants applied for compensation for damage or loss under the Act, regulations or tenancy agreement. I have amended their application to reflect the correct dispute code. The landlord applied for compensation for damage to the rental unit. Both parties appeared or were represented at the hearing and were provided the opportunity to make relevant submissions, in writing and orally pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, and to respond to the submissions of the other party.  \nPreliminary Issue – Jurisdiction  \nDuring the first hearing date of January 15, 2014 I heard testimony from the landlord suggesting the Act may not apply to this tenancy. I ordered the hearing adjourned and that both parties provide me with a copy of their written tenancy agreement and end of tenancy letter since neither party had provided it prior to the commencement of the initial hearing date. Upon reconvening the hearing I was satisfied that both parties had the identical copies of the same documents and I have relied upon them in making this decision.  \nThe Act applies to all residential tenancy agreements between a landlord and a tenant unless specifically excluded under section 4 of the Act. Section 4(c) excludes agreements related to: “living accommodation in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner of that accommodation.”  \nIn this case, the landlord (who is an owner) took the position that she shared the kitchen and bathroom facilities in the lower level of the house occupied by the tenants, primarily when her living space was undergoing a renovation. The tenants submitted that they were unaware of the landlord using their kitchen or bathroom facilities.  \nThe landlord submitted that the tenants had also used her kitchen facilities. The tenant responded by stating that on one occasion, when the tenant wished to make a surprise birthday cake for her visiting mother, she requested and was permitted to use the landlord’s oven to make the birthday cake.  \nThe tenancy agreement names the landlord and three tenants. The written document provides, in part, the following information:  \n3 single rooms for 3 single people, for a charge of $1500 per month.  \nRent includes, heat, water, hot water, electricity, TV and Internet service.  \nThat will include;  \nPrivate Bedroom with fixture of bed and bedding, closet, desk, chair and night table.  \nTo share:  \n1. Living room includes furniture sofa set, dining set with 4 chairs, coffee table, and side table, TV and TV stand.  \n2. Bathroom and Kitchen includes Stove, Refrigerator, Microwave, coffee maker and all cutllery.  \n3. Rent $1,500 a month for 6months started 12 April 2013  \n4. If tenant decide to stay to October 2013 rent will be $1650 staring 1st October  \n[reproduced as written]  \nThe landlord was of the position that the “To share” portion of the agreement meant the landlord and the landlord’s family members would share the living room, bathroom and kitchen with the tenants.  \nThe tenants were of the position that the “To share” portion of the agreement applied to the 3 tenants sharing the living room, kitchen and bathroom with each other.  \nI heard that there was a door that separated the tenants’ living space from the landlord’s living space. The door was lockable on the landlord’s side. I heard the tenants had a separate entry door that they used exclusively and the landlord had a separate entry.  \nI found the wording of the tenancy agreement could be interpreted in a manner that reflects the positions put forth by both parties so I reserved judgement with respect to  \nthis matter and continued to hear from the parties with respect to their monetary claims against each other in order to assess credibility. During that process, I determined that the tenants were highly credible and the landlord’s testimony seriously lacked credibility. Further details of this de","cbCaionT0lrjwHJr","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaionT0lrjwHJr","pdf",73480,10,"English","# Preliminary Issue – Jurisdiction\n## Issue(s) to be Decided\n# Procedural Matter – Evidence","[{\"question\":\"What jurisdictional question did the tribunal address first?\",\"answer\":\"Whether the residential tenancy Act applied to the tenancy, requiring review of the tenancy agreement and end of tenancy letter when the Act’s applicability was challenged.\"},{\"question\":\"Why was the Act found to apply in this case?\",\"answer\":\"The tribunal accepted the tenants’ version that they were not sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities with the landlord, and found a single occasion involving use of the oven for a birthday cake was insufficient to trigger the Act’s exclusion.\"},{\"question\":\"What happened to the landlord’s “estimate” evidence?\",\"answer\":\"The tribunal excluded the “estimate” from consideration because it was not among the documents it had indicated would be accepted during the adjournment, and it raised concerns about reliability and whether it had been served on the tenants.\"}]","DECISION - Dispute Codes MNDC, MND, FF Introduction - Preliminary Issue – Jurisdiction | PDF",1789519347]