Novacorp Properties Ltd. v. Lane
Clause 5 of the standard form lease unambiguously required personal service or service by registered mail; the tenant did neither when he left the Notice at the superintendent's unoccupied office, therefore the Notice was invalid and the RTO order should be restored; appeal allowed and tenant ordered to pay the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2004 NSSC 67
- Parties
- Appellant (landlord): Novacorp Properties Ltd.; Respondent (tenant): Corston Lane
- Court
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Small Claims Court Adjudicator Decision Concerning a Residential Tenancy / Decision on Appeal by Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; order of the Residential Tenancy Officer restored
- Legal Topics
- Notice to Quit, Service of Documents, Lease Interpretation, Restoration of Administrative Order
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Novacorp Properties Ltd.
Appellant (landlord)
Corston Lane
Respondent (tenant)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Court Adjudicator Decision Concerning a Residential Tenancy / Decision on Appeal by Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Notice to Quit was validly served in accordance with the lease and statute
- 2 Whether clause 5 of the standard form lease is ambiguous
- 3 Whether the Small Claims Court Adjudicator correctly varied the Residential Tenancy Officer's decision
Ratio Decidendi
Clause 5 of the standard form lease unambiguously required personal service or service by registered mail; the tenant did neither when he left the Notice at the superintendent's unoccupied office, therefore the Notice was invalid and the RTO order should be restored; appeal allowed and tenant ordered to pay the landlord $365.92 plus $50.00 costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; order of the Residential Tenancy Officer restored
Orders
- Order of the Residential Tenancy Officer restored
- Respondent tenant shall pay the Appellant landlord $365.92 plus costs $50.00 for a total of $415.92
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Novacorp Properties Ltd. v. Lane Court Supreme Court Date 2004-03-23 Citation 2004 NSSC 67 Docket 213015A Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Edwards, Frank C. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Novacorp Properties Ltd. v. Lane, 2004NSSC67 Date: 20040323 Docket: 213015A Registry: Halifax Between: Novacorp Properties Ltd. Appellant v. Corston Lane Respondent Judge: Before the Honourable Justice Frank Edwards Heard: March 16, 2004, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Lynn Jenkins, for the Appellant Corston Lane, in person By the Court: [1] This is an appeal from a decision of a Small Claims Court Adjudicator (SCCA) who had varied a decision of a Residential Tenancy officer (RTO). [2] The Respondent tenant had given his notice to quit (Notice) dated July 1, 2003, by leaving same at the Appellant’s superintendent’s unoccupied office on June 30, 2003. The Appellant did not actually see the Notice until July 2, 2003, the first business day following the long weekend. “Residential Tenancies Act: Notice to Quit 10(1)(b) where the residential premises are let from month to month, (i) by the tenant, at least one month, before the expiration of any such month. Standard Form of Lease (Residential Tenancies Act R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 401): Who to Serve 5. All notices to quit or service of documents to the landlord shall be in writing and served in person, by registered mail or by any other means authorized by the Director.” [3] The RTO found the Notice improper in part because it had not been personally served or served by registered mail. The SCCA varied the RTO’s decision in part because he found clause 5 of the Lease to be ambiguous. With respect, I do not agree that clause 5 is ambiguous. The Respondent was required to serve the Notice personally or by registered mail. He did neither. [4] Accordingly, I am allowing the appeal and restoring the Order of the RTO. The Respondent tenant shall pay the Appellant landlord $365.92 plus costs of $50.00 for a total of $415.92. J.