Landlord Failed to File Security Deposit Claim on Time, Must Return Deposit

Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2026 NSSM 17 Date: 20260408 Docket:  550082 Registry: Digby Between: [NAME] and [NAME] v. [NAME]: [NAME]: March 25, 2026, in Digby, Nova Scotia Decision: April 8, 2026 Counsel: [redacted] [NAME], self-represented By the Court: Background [ 1 ]              This is an appeal of an Order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated January 5, 2026. The tenant, [NAME], applied to the Director requesting the return of a security deposit in the amount of $500 following the termination of her lease on November 30, 2025. The Director granted an order in [NAME]’s favour and ordered the landlords, [NAME] and [NAME], to return the security deposit. [ 2 ]              The present appeal is brought by the landlords on the basis that the damage deposit should not be returned due to damage to the property, garbage disposal and overall cleanliness. Facts [ 3 ]              The parties entered into a fixed-term lease agreement beginning on December 1, 2024 and ending November 30, 2025. With the landlords’ consent, the tenant moved into the premises approximately two weeks before the official commencement of the lease. No additional rent was paid for this occupation. Around the beginning of September, 2025 [NAME] placed a note on the door of the premises to confirm the tenancy would terminate on November 30, 2025 in accordance with the contract. [ 4 ]              By email dated December 7, 2025 [NAME] advised [NAME] that the damage deposit would not be returned because of the state of the property at the conclusion of the tenancy. In reply, [NAME] informed [NAME] she would be seeking an independent review by the “landlord and tenancy board”. [ 5 ]              On December 20, 2025 the landlords filed a security deposit claim with Residential Tenancies seeking to retain the deposit in order to cover the cost of addressing various clean-up and maintenance issues that were identified by the landlords at the conclusion of the tenancy. [ 6 ]              The tenant and the landlords testified at the hearing. No additional witnesses were called. [ 7 ]              [ADDRESS] heard evidence from both parties regarding the state of the property upon termination. [ADDRESS] also reviewed a copy of the lease and schedules describing the tenant’s responsibility for the ordinary cleanliness of the interior and exterior of the premises. A rental condition report appended to the lease supported the landlords’ position that the property was in good condition at the outset of the lease. [ 8 ]              Both parties gave evidence regarding plumbing issues that arose during the course of the tenancy. [ADDRESS] was not satisfied from the evidence presented at the hearing that the tenant was at fault for the plumbing issues identified.  In particular, there was no direct evidence of the tenant’s improper use of a sink or drain.  Rather, the Court accepts the tenant’s evidence that sink overflow and clogging concerns were reported to the landlords in a timely fashion. [ 9 ]              [ADDRESS] accepts that some cleaning efforts and minor repairs were required upon termination of the lease. With respect to cleanliness, the Court accepts the landlords’ submission that a couple weekends’ worth of cleaning efforts were required to restore the property to the condition it was in at the outset of the tenancy. With respect to the items that required repair, the Court was not satisfied that the tenant caused any significant damage to the property beyond regular wear and tear. [ 10 ]          The lease expressly provided that the tenant was responsible for garbage removal. [ADDRESS] accepts [NAME]’s testimony that, at the end of her tenancy, she placed garbage at the end of the driveway and made arrangements with a friend to have it picked up. [ADDRESS] also accepts [NAME]’s testimony that she believed the garbage was intended to remain at the end of the driveway for some time and, with pending storm weather, she relocated the garbage to be stored under the carport. The unfortunate result of the lack of communication between the parties was that the garbage was not retrieved by [NAME]’s colleague and remained at the premises to be dealt with by the landlords. Law [ 11 ]          Section 12A of the Residential Tenancies Act , RSNS 1989, c 401 provides that a security deposit, together with interest, must be returned to a tenant within ten days of the date of termination of a lease. If a landlord seeks to retain part or all of the deposit without the tenant’s consent, the landlord must file a security deposit claim with the Director within ten days of the date of termination of the lease. [ 12 ]          As explained by Adjudicator Darling, K.C. in the case [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2024 NSSM 90 at para 12, the mandatory language in section 12A of the Residential Tenancies Act creates a strict requirement: […] Sections12A (2)[1]of the Residential Tenancies Act, in which the use of the mandatory “shall file a security deposit claim” in the absence of the Tenant’s consent, creates a legal requirement for the Landlord to file and serve a notice of intention to retain the deposit within ten days of the termination of the tenancy.  In the absence of this requirement, the Landlord is not permitted to make an application to retain the deposit (section 12A (5)).  The law is clear. Analysis [ 13 ]          As summarized above, much of the evidence presented at the hearing related to the condition of the property at the close of the tenancy. However, it is not necessary for the Court to determine liability for damages because this application relates exclusively to the retention of the security deposit. [ 14 ]          The landlords’ application to retain the security deposit was not filed within the ten day timeframe prescribed by the legislation.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 12A(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act , the landlords’ application is denied and the landlords must return the security deposit to the tenant. Conclusion [ 15 ]          Having considered the parties’ submissions, this Court finds that it is not appropriate to disturb the Director’s findings. The Director’s Order that the landlords, [NAME] and [NAME], must return the sum of $500.00 to the appellant tenant, [NAME], is upheld. [ 16 ]          This appeal is dismissed without costs to either party. [NAME], Small Claims Court Adjudicator