A local woman says she and her family are being forced out of their Klondike Road apartment without cause.

Alicia Johnston says she was given a 60-day eviction notice two months ago.

That was just a day after she had been successful in getting an order through the Yukon Residential Tenancies Office that awarded her compensation for issues with the apartment.

Those included a fridge that wasn’t working and a bathroom that was not usable for some time.

With the eviction set for today, Johnston had sought dispute resolution through the tenancies office, which upheld the eviction.

She was left with just seven days to find a new place for herself, her husband and three kids with today’s deadline to be out, Johnston said in an interview Monday.

She said she’s unsure where she and her family will end up.

She noted that she’s struggled to find housing for her family since moving back to the Yukon from Alberta in 2016. She’s currently on the Yukon Housing Corp. waiting list.

Johnston didn’t show up for the dispute resolution hearing, but, as she pointed out, there were a number of issues happening for her at the time.

She had a matter being heard in criminal court at the same time.

As well, she had recently started a new job along with looking after her three kids, the youngest of whom has cerebral palsy.

“I had completely forgotten,” she said of the hearing, noting how upsetting it is that there is no leeway for such circumstances.

The written decision of the tenancies office reviewing the matter notes that those who attended the hearing – including the landlord – “stayed on the line for a 15-minute period waiting for the tenant to attend.”

The office recognized that Johnston did have another matter in criminal court at the same time as the dispute resolution.

However, it was also noted the office was never contacted about the scheduling conflict.

The decision states: “The dispute resolution process is designed to be final and binding, and give parties access to fair and expedient dispute resolution.

“That said, parties need to maintain contact with the office on the matter if alternative arrangements are required or if they missed a hearing.

“Although the hearing took place during a chaotic time for the tenant, the tenant could have taken some measure to inform the office of the situation before she did.

“The landlord has now obtained an order based on the non-attendance of the applicant.

“To find that parties can have matters reheard due to scheduling conflicts that, even if they do come up in the last minute, could potentially be remediated with a short phone call, would be unreasonable and potentially encourage parties to unnecessarily delay proceedings.

“Parties are required to attend the hearing, or at a minimum .... show some immediate concern in the event they missed to the hearing to have it potentially rescheduled.

“Based on this, I dismiss the application for review based on the fact that the tenant did not take reasonable steps to ensure they could attend the hearing, or make reasonable attempts through the RTO (tenancies office) to potentially adjourn the matter to be heard at another time.

“There are not sufficient grounds based on what was submitted to reopen or reverse the decision of the deputy director. I therefore dismiss the application for review filed by the tenant.”

Johnston argued there have also been tenancy disputes between her husband and landlord over a different unit he was renting, expressing suspicions that the eviction may be related to that.

In an August decision on that matter, the tenancies office ruled in favour of her husband, ordering his landlord to pay compensation over issues at that apartment.

In a brief comment on the matter Monday, landlord Daljeet Dhillon was quick to note that the 60-day eviction notice is legal, and there is no requirement for a reason to be given.