Judge who ruled for N.B. landlord in rent-reduction case owns apartment building

New Brunswick Court of King's Bench Justice Kathryn Gregory, who sided with a landlord in a case involving the way provincial tenancy officers have been phasing-in large rent increases for tenants, owns a five-unit apartment building in Fredericton, property records show.

That does not automatically put her in a conflict of interest to have ruled on the case but a number of legal experts say it is a close enough call to suggest the matter might have been better handled by someone else.

"It's often very fact-specific when we think that line is crossed," said Jula Hughes about when a judge is in a conflict of interest.

"But I think it's important to remember that we care about the appearance of impartiality as much as we care about actual impartiality."  

Hughes is the dean of Law at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. She's also a former law professor at the University of New Brunswick and an expert in the field of judicial ethics.

Gregory was appointed to the Court of King's Bench in November 2020 following a lengthy career as a New Brunswick Crown prosecutor.

Last spring, a case involving two tenants in Saint John landed in her courtroom.   

The tenants had received notices from their landlord of a $200-per-month increase in rent to take effect in March, but applied for a review of that amount with the province's Tenant and Landlord Relations Office (formerly the Residential Tenancies Tribunal).  

A new policy introduced by the province for 2023 allows tenants who receive increases above 7.3 per cent to have the amount phased-in over multiple years.  

The tenants had been paying  $860 and $900 per month, respectively, and although a tenancy officer assigned to the case found the $200 increase justifiable given market rents in the area, the officer concluded the amount should be phased-in gradually, beginning with a rent increase of $67 per month this year.

"Although I find the [rent increase] notice to be reasonable, I order the increase in rent to be spread over three years," the officer wrote in each of the two cases.

Gregory ruled that decision was unfair to the landlord because the awarding of a phased-in rent increase is discretionary, not automatic, according to her interpretation of the legislation that created the policy.  She found the landlord was not given the opportunity to oppose the award and have those views weighed in the officer's decision.

"While there is certainly authority to spread a reasonable rent over several years ... the RTT [Residential Tenancies Tribunal] does not provide any explanation for having exercised the discretion to do so," wrote Gregory.

"It is not an issue of sufficiency of reasons, there are no reasons, period."