Can a landlord continue to claim their security deposit?

In Reid-Woodson v. Turcotte, 2012 SKQB 314, Foley J. addressed the provisions of The Act dealing with the handling of the security deposit and concluded that where “the landlord had not complied with his mandatory statutory obligations, the legislature has removed landlord’s right to a continued claim of the tenant’s deposit. The legislation does not prevent the landlord from subsequently advancing a claim for damages. It simply removed his right to hold the deposit as security.” Foley J. wrote: “the justification advanced by the hearing officer, i.e., that the law may be ignored if it is one’s first violation is fundamentally an error in law. The statutory obligation is mandatory.”