A Prince Edward Island landlord that emailed its security-deposit claim at 9:03 p.m. on the final day missed the statutory deadline because the application was legally treated as filed the next day. In Royalty Maple Properties Inc. v. Basheet Arisekola and others, 2026 PEIRAC 62, the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission upheld the consequence of double repayment and ordered the landlord to pay $5,146.78, including interest.
The September 29 decision dismissed the landlord’s appeal. It also rejected a separate argument that returning the keys two days after the tenants moved out extended the tenancy and gave the landlord more time to claim the deposit.
The tenancy ended before the keys were returned
The tenants rented the lower part of a duplex for $2,500 a month and paid a security deposit of the same amount. Their renewed fixed-term agreement ended August 31, 2025, and they left that day by mutual agreement.
The landlord argued that possession was not fully surrendered until the keys were returned on September 2. The tenants said they had contacted the landlord before 5 p.m. on August 31 for instructions and that the later handover resulted from a failure to respond.
The commission accepted the tenants’ evidence. The agreement identified August 31 as the end date, the tenants had vacated, and there was no agreement extending the tenancy. In those circumstances, the later physical delivery of the keys did not change when the tenancy ended.
Filing after 5 p.m. moved the legal date
Under section 40 of the Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord has 15 days after a tenancy ends to return the deposit with prescribed interest or apply to the Director to claim against it. Here, that period ended September 15, 2025.
The landlord emailed its application to the Rental Office and the tenants that evening, seeking to keep the deposit for cleaning and repairs. It maintained that an electronic submission made on September 15 was within time.
The commission applied subsection 100(5)(b), which treats a document sent electronically after 5 p.m. as served on the next day that is not a holiday. For this statutory deadline, the application was therefore considered filed on September 16, one day late.
The consequence was mandatory. Under subsection 40(4), a landlord that fails to comply cannot claim against the deposit and must pay the tenant double its amount. The commission did not treat the fact that the email was sent before midnight as sufficient.
Cleaning evidence failed independently
The landlord also sought compensation for cleaning, repainting and repairs, saying the accommodation needed approximately 20 hours of cleaning and was in worse condition than ordinary wear would explain. It acknowledged that no condition report had been completed at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants disputed both the work claimed and its attribution to damage they had caused. The landlord also explained that an earlier painting invoice concerned a different property and asked the commission to consider a corrected invoice instead.
The commission found the evidence insufficient on a balance of probabilities. Without a starting-condition report, it was harder to distinguish pre-existing conditions from damage during the tenancy. The assertion that 20 hours of cleaning were needed did not itself establish the end condition or show that the work exceeded ordinary cleaning after reasonable use.
That was an independent reason for rejecting the claimed deductions. Even if the application had been timely, the landlord had not proved that the cleaning, repainting or repair costs resulted from tenant damage rather than ordinary wear or preparation for the next tenancy.
The final order required payment by October 13, 2026, of the $2,500 deposit, a further $2,500 under the doubling provision and $146.78 in interest. The earlier Rental Office order was otherwise confirmed. The reasons do not establish subsequent payment or enforcement.
