Former tenant wins suit against Fredericton property manager but still waits for payment

A New Brunswick tenant recently sued his former property manager over a promise of internet services that were never provided — and he won.

But Matthew Habermacher took a less conventional route to address his apartment complaint — small claims court. And even though the court sided with Habermacher, the property manager has his own ideas about paying him.

In New Brunswick, a tenant concerned about issues such as a withheld security deposit or a rent increase can ask the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to review the issue.

But some tenants have reported cases of retribution in the past after making complaints to the tribunal. Fear of such a reaction from his property manager was on Habermacher's mind as well.

Habermacher, now based in Moncton, moved to Fredericton in June 2023 after law school for a year-long clerkship at the Fredericton courthouse.

At his new apartment, one of the terms of tenancy was that cable and internet services were included. But when he did the walk-through of the Brunswick Street apartment, he didn't see a router.

"I figured it must be for the whole building," Habermacher said. "There are four apartments in that building, and [I] asked that the landlord's agent would let me know when he gets back to the office what the … network name and password are. 

"So he got back to his office, and he wrote back to let me know that it was not going to be included, even though it was included in the rental agreement."

The building that Habermacher was living in was managed by Hanwell-based Dooryard Property Management Inc.

Led by Matthew Hunter, the company manages buildings for property owners and takes on landlord tasks such as finding and screening tenants, handling rent payments, maintaining the property and dealing with tenant issues.

Hunter said it was the company's first time listing the property Habermacher leased, and it was simply a mistake the listing said the internet was included.

Habermacher said the company offered $200, or to take that amount off the next month's rent, in lieu of internet services. But he said he rejected the offer because it wouldn't cover a year's worth of internet.

He considered complaining to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal during his tenancy, but he worried this could create a bad relationship with the property manager. 

"Or do I wait until the end of the year, when I know exactly what my losses are, and then ask to be refunded then, which is what I ultimately decided to do," Habermacher said.

WATCH | Matthew Habermacher describes how he sued property manager:

Moncton tenant says small claims process with property manager was difficult

13 hours ago

Duration 0:43

Matthew Habermacher took his former property manager to small claims court over internet services that were included in the rental contract but never received. He won, but the company asked for leniency in how it paid him.

While Habermacher never accepted the $200 offer, Hunter said he didn't expect any issues because Dooryard didn't hear anything again about the internet.

"[He] moved out without incident, gave proper notice, you know, everything a tenant should," Hunter said.

"Once we signed over the security deposit … he's like, 'Oh, by the way, you owe me $1,000 and change.'"

Hunter said he tried to explain again that the internet promise was a mistake.

Habermacher filed a claim with small claims court in July 2024, and the hearing happened in January 2025.

He said the hearing officer had to first confirm the court had jurisdiction because normally, the tenancies tribunal handles rental cases.

"She had presented us with decisions where the Residential Tenancies Tribunal had made a decision about the deposit, and the small claims court had decided not to interfere with it," Habermacher said. 

"In my case, there was no decision from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, and as soon as my lease was done, they lost jurisdiction."

Hunter said he believes the matter should have gone to the tribunal instead of small claims.

The court ultimately found Habermacher was entitled to the full $1,509.01, which includes what he paid for internet services and $500 in legal fees.

When Habermacher contacted Hunter after the decision, Hunter sought a break and asked if he could pay in $100 monthly instalments. Habermacher wanted full payment by April 29, but after more emails, the two agreed on a payment schedule of $100 a month. 

Habermacher did not agree to Hunter's condition request that he not be penalized if payment wasn't made on the first business day of every month. Hunter said he's willing to pay Habermacher if his condition is accepted. 

"We're a property management company — the busiest day of the month for us is the first," said Hunter, who wanted "in writing that I get a few days grace."

After more emails, Habermacher eventually wrote that he planned to have the decision registered with the sheriff if the money wasn't paid in full or two lump sums.

"I'm not comfortable with having conditions imposed on me when this is a court judgment," Habermacher said in the interview.

Habermacher said, as a criminal law lawyer, having some legal knowledge helped with understanding what to do in this situation, but the civil system was unfamiliar territory. 

And he said he's even more unfamiliar with having a judgment registered and enforced, which he said is his next step.

He said the whole process has been "very difficult." 

"There's a lot of steps to jump through, and I can understand why someone would abandon it or decide not to collect."