Kera-Maris Investments Ltd. v. Dockrill

Kera-Maris Investments Ltd. v. Dockrill

On the de novo hearing the credible evidence (notably the detailed inspection and report by long-term service technician Parsons) demonstrated Boiler 2 served only Apartment 4 and did not supply Apartment 3; the Bluewave technician's contrary conclusion was mistaken; therefore the tenants were not paying for heat for which the landlord was responsible and the Director's compensation order was rescinded.

Citation
2011 NSSM 35
Parties
Landlord (appellant): Kera-Maris Investments Ltd.; Tenant (respondent): Darlene Dockrill
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies to Small Claims Court / Appeal Hearing (de Novo) and Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated March 22, 2011 rescinded in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Allocation of Heating Costs, Compensation for Utility Payments, Evidentiary Assessment of Expert Reports, Appeal De Novo
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Landlord Tenant Law Small Claims Court Procedure Allocation of Heating Costs Compensation for Utility Payments Evidentiary Assessment of Expert Reports Appeal De Novo

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kera-Maris Investments Ltd.

Landlord (appellant)

Darlene Dockrill

Tenant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies to Small Claims Court / Appeal Hearing (de Novo) and Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant paid for heat that was landlord's responsibility
  2. 2 Whether the Bluewave technician's inspection correctly established that Boiler 2 served Apartment 3
  3. 3 Whether the Director's order awarding $9,859.04 should be upheld or rescinded

Ratio Decidendi

On the de novo hearing the credible evidence (notably the detailed inspection and report by long-term service technician Parsons) demonstrated Boiler 2 served only Apartment 4 and did not supply Apartment 3; the Bluewave technician's contrary conclusion was mistaken; therefore the tenants were not paying for heat for which the landlord was responsible and the Director's compensation order was rescinded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated March 22, 2011 rescinded in its entirety.

Orders

  • Order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated March 22, 2011 rescinded in its entirety
  • No compensation awarded to the Tenants on appeal