The tenant and the landlords, all of them with dead names, developed a friendship throughout the tenancy, but the court found that this deteriorated entirely due to the condition of the rabbits.
After the tenant captured footage of the landlords and their friends looking at her house, she became “scared” and ran out.
She later filed a claim in the rental court that she was being harassed by the landlords, who then filed counter motions against the woman.
A recent court decision, which rejects the requests of both parties, clarifies the dispute regarding rabbits.
She said the tenant moved into the rural one-bedroom unit in November 2021.
Next to the unit was a shed and an office used by the owners, who were staying about 50 meters from the tenant in a separate dwelling, for business purposes.
The lease agreement stated that the female tenant could have “rabbit rabbits”, although it was agreed between the two parties that she was already allowed to have three.
However, the owners told the court that the rabbits should be kept in the shed or outside and that they were meant to be euthanized.
While the tenant claimed there was no agreement about not letting the rabbits in, I agreed that the plan was to be outside or in the shed.
The tenant also said that she intended to separate the female from the pets.
“Unfortunately, there was a window of opportunity that the three rabbits were not euthanized, meaning that the two pets became pregnant,” the decision read.
In February of this year, the two babies were born, which means that the woman continued to care for at least 18 rabbits.
She wanted to keep the children indoors and told the court that she had a discussion with the landlords who told her they weren’t keen on having animals inside the unit but acknowledged that the pets were vulnerable.
However, the owners told the court that they did not agree with being inside because they were concerned about the damage being done and far exceeded the original agreed number of rabbits.
Soon, the owners began to take an interest in the whereabouts of the rabbits and their condition.
This became apparent to the tenant when she was captured by a security camera that, in her absence, the owners and their friends were looking through the windows and doors of her unit, with one peeing outside and another trying to open a window to get in. on the property.
“As a result of the owner’s alleged behavior, the tenant was so intimidated that she decided to leave. The tenant vacated the building on March 27, 2022.”
Two days later, she returned to collect her belongings with the police.
After the tenant filed her application with the court, claiming that she had been harassed during the tenancy period and that her quiet enjoyment had been disturbed, the landlords submitted their application.
They alleged that the woman violated the rental agreement when she allowed the undead rabbits to live inside the unit and when she did not take out the baby rabbits.
In the other request, they demanded compensation for allegedly unpaid rent, cleaning costs, gas refills, and gardening work that involved rabbit holes.
The landlords refuted the tenant’s allegations of any harassment.
They say they had to go through her window to go to another field, and when they looked, it was in order to see what was going on with the rabbits.
Likewise, the tenant denied being responsible for any unpaid rent or cleaning costs, and said she had already paid for gas and garden work.
She was adamant that the rabbits didn’t make any holes.
After two hearings on the matter, the court ruled that the rental condition was that the women were allowed to have three rabbits and that they needed to cancel their gender on arrival.
“It was really the situation with the rabbits that soured the relationship. I think any sane landlord in that case would have resented a tenant who brought undischarged rabbits onto a property which immediately produced a large number of other rabbits.”
The court acknowledged that the landlords and their friends had searched inside the tenant’s home, but found that they only did so because they were curious to know what was going on with the pets.
The court ruled that there was no consistent pattern of harassment, and dismissed the woman’s claim.
The owners’ requests were also rejected due to lack of evidence.
The court ordered that the $1,600 bond be returned to the woman.
Written by Tara Shasky
#Leaping #Madness #Rent #Dispute #Breeding #Rabbits