Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Appeal filed 78 days after personal service of the original Order, well beyond the 14-day statutory limitation period under s 87(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act

• Clerical amendment correcting the premises address did not restart the appeal period, as the Appellant was not misled and was aware of the decision's substance

• Appellant failed to attend the Rental Officer hearing despite being personally served with notice, citing lost documents and travel

• Ample evidence of repeated disturbances — including noise complaints, loose dog, unclean premises, and alleged illegal activities — supported the Rental Officer's findings

• Conditional "tiered" eviction orders raised an unresolved jurisdictional concern regarding impermissible sub-delegation of the Rental Officer's statutory authority to the Housing Authority

• Disturbances continued after the Order and even immediately before the appeal hearing, undermining the Appellant's claim of lifestyle change

Background of the tenancy and recurring disturbances

Mary Ann Minoza entered into a tenancy agreement with the Hay River Housing Authority for a public housing unit commencing October 4, 2019. Problems with the Appellant's occupation of the premises surfaced early in the tenancy. Between 2020 and 2024, the Rental Officer issued three separate conditional eviction orders — in February 2020, February 2022, and February 2024 — each requiring that no further disturbances be reported. On each occasion, Minoza managed to comply with the conditions and avoided eviction.

The June 2025 application and the Rental Officer's hearing

On June 19, 2025, the Authority applied again to the Rental Officer, seeking an order requiring the Appellant to comply with the quiet enjoyment obligation under ss 43(3)(a) and (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act and a conditional order for termination of the tenancy and eviction. A hearing was scheduled for September 3, 2025, and the Appellant was personally served with notice on July 24, 2025. Minoza did not attend the hearing, later explaining that she had lost her court documents and was traveling. At the hearing, the Authority's tenant relations officer, Adam Swanson, presented evidence of complaints spanning from April 2024 to December 2024, including noise disturbances, an uncontrolled dog, heavy foot traffic to the premises allegedly related to illegal activities, unclean premises, and multiple calls to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Swanson noted that the Authority did not wish to see the Appellant homeless and that the tiered eviction approach had worked well in the past.

The Rental Officer's order and its amendment

The Rental Officer issued a conditional order on September 4, 2025, requiring the Appellant to comply with the quiet enjoyment obligation and setting staggered termination dates — October 31, November 30, December 31, 2025, and January 31, 2026 — each contingent on whether further verified disturbances were reported. The Appellant was personally served with the Order on September 18, 2025. A typographical error regarding the address of the premises was later discovered, and an amended Order was personally served on the Appellant on November 17, 2025.

The appeal and timeliness issue

Minoza filed her Notice of Appeal on December 2, 2025, which was 78 days after she was personally served with the original Order and 18 days after service of the amended Order — exceeding the 14-day appeal period prescribed by s 87(1) of the Act by four days even under the most generous calculation. The Authority argued the appeal should be dismissed as out of time. The Court considered competing jurisprudence from Manitoba and Saskatchewan on whether a clerical amendment restarts an appeal period. Ultimately, the Court sided with the Authority, finding that the amendment was purely clerical, that the Appellant was not misled, and that the appeal period ran from the date of the original Order. The Court also emphasized the public policy rationale for timely filing, given that appeals can trigger stays of eviction lasting months.

Merits of the appeal

Even setting aside the timeliness issue, the Court found no error on the part of the Rental Officer. The Appellant had proper notice of the hearing but did not attend, and she had prior familiarity with the process through three earlier proceedings. While Minoza asserted that the evidence was false and motivated by hostility from a neighbour, she provided no evidence to support this claim. Notably, during a pre-hearing conference, she admitted that there were probably some of the allegations which were true. The Authority also filed additional affidavits showing continued disturbances on September 7 and 9, 2025, and on February 16 and 17, 2026 — well after the original Order was issued.

Jurisdictional concern regarding conditional eviction orders

The Court raised, on its own initiative, a jurisdictional question about whether the Rental Officer's conditional eviction order constituted an impermissible sub-delegation of statutory authority. Because the order left it to the Authority — rather than the Rental Officer — to verify whether disturbances continued, there was a concern about the delegation of adjudicative functions. The Court acknowledged the practical value of tiered eviction orders as a "last chance" mechanism but noted the legal tension with the presumption against sub-delegation of statutory authority. Absent full argument on the issue, the Court elected to leave this question for another day and recommended that the Rental Officer consider adjusting practices or seek legislative amendment.

Ruling and outcome

The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories dismissed Mary Ann Minoza's appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds. Justice Sheila M. MacPherson confirmed the Rental Officer's decision to terminate the tenancy agreement, with the eviction order made effective as of June 1, 2026. No monetary award was at issue in this matter, as the case concerned tenancy termination and eviction rather than damages. The Hay River Housing Authority, represented by counsel Jared Lane, was the successful party, while Minoza was self-represented throughout the proceedings.