An individual who applied for dispute resolution through the Residential Tenancy Office (RTO) complained to OmbudsPEI that they were required to serve the Notice of Hearing to the respondent. While they complied, the individual argued that, according to the RTO’s stated rules, the responsibility for serving the Notice rested with the RTO, not the applicant.
Upon review, OmbudsPEI agreed that the RTO did not follow its published practice. While the Director has the discretion to approve alternative methods of serving a Notice of Hearing, the RTO’s public-facing information did not accurately reflect this.
In addition to apologizing to the individual, the RTO updated its website to clarify that the Director has the authority to approve alternative methods for delivering a Notice of Hearing.
