An accidental kitchen fire did not prevent a Prince Edward Island landlord from establishing statutory grounds to end a tenancy where the tenant’s response escalated the fire and caused significant risk and damage. In Cameron Apartments Inc. v. June Gallant and Kirk Gallant, 2026 PEIRAC 61, the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission overturned an order allowing the tenants to return once their accommodation became habitable.
The September 28 decision allowed the landlord’s appeal and terminated the tenancy effective 5 p.m. on July 31, 2026, the legally corrected date of the first eviction notice. It did not make a monetary award for the fire damage.
Two notices after the fire
The monthly tenancy continued when Cameron Apartments bought the duplex property in April 2026. A fire occurred in the rental unit on June 13. Two days later, the landlord served one eviction notice based on the fire and damage and another concerning alleged harassment and breach of a material term.
The notices initially gave July 15 as the departure date. The statute automatically corrected that date to July 31 to meet the minimum notice period. The tenants disputed both notices, and the Rental Office ruled in July that their tenancy would continue and they could return after repairs.
On appeal, the landlord argued that cooking with a substantial quantity of grease, moving the burning pan and applying water created a serious hazard and worsened the damage. The tenants maintained that the fire was accidental and that considerable efforts had been made to extinguish it, at personal risk.
The tenant also disputed the availability of fire-safety equipment and characterized the eviction, served shortly after the fire, as retaliatory. He sought to preserve the tenancy and obtain compensation, rent relief and repairs.
Intent was not the statutory test
The commission emphasized that ending a tenancy is serious and that the landlord had to prove the statutory grounds on a balance of probabilities. The relevant provisions address conduct that seriously jeopardizes health or safety, places the landlord’s property at significant risk or causes unreasonable damage.
The commission accepted that the tenant had not deliberately started the fire and that genuine attempts were made to put it out. But the provisions did not require an intention to cause the resulting risk or damage. The issue was whether the conduct, viewed in its circumstances, met the statutory thresholds.
It found that moving the pan caused burning grease to spill and create additional fire, while applying water caused further damage. Although intended to extinguish the fire, those actions escalated it and placed the unit, building and occupants at substantial risk.
The unit became uninhabitable and required significant repairs, including asbestos-related remediation. The commission found that the evidence established serious jeopardy to health or safety, significant risk to property and unreasonable physical damage.
Findings were limited to the tenancy dispute
The commission did not determine whether the alleged absence of a smoke detector or fire extinguisher was established. Even assuming such a deficiency, it found that this did not alter the evidence about the fire and the actions taken in response. That reasoning was confined to deciding the eviction appeal, not a broader allocation of all potential liability.
The timing of the first notice did not establish retaliation. Its stated basis was the fire and resulting damage, and the commission found the evidence supported that basis.
The second notice was unnecessary to the result. Although the commission criticized some later communications, it expressly declined to decide whether they met the separate statutory ground alleged in that notice.
The commission overturned the Rental Office’s continuation order and fixed the tenancy’s termination at July 31. Its reasons gave the landlord 15 days from the September 28 order to file the proper application if it wished to claim against the security deposit. That opportunity was not an award permitting the landlord to keep the deposit.
The reasons record that repairs remained incomplete at the time of the evidence. They do not establish the property’s current condition, subsequent enforcement or the outcome of any later deposit claim.
