McHugh v. Mannette

McHugh v. Mannette

Occasional, infrequent visits by a parent do not constitute 'residence' for the purposes of s.10(8)(f)(i); the landlords failed to prove they required possession in good faith for residence by a family member, so the Director's refusal to terminate the tenancy was correctly affirmed.

Citation
2021 NSSM 18
Parties
Appellant/landlord: Connor McHugh; Appellant/landlord: Jessica Anderson; Respondent/tenant: Jason Mannette; Respondent/tenant: Kelly Boulton
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Appeal From Residential Tenancies Director / Decision on Appeal After Zoom Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Decision of the Residential Tenancies Director dated April 23, 2021 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Termination for Landlord's Use, Family Member Occupancy, Statutory Interpretation of S.10(8)
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Termination for Landlord's Use Family Member Occupancy Statutory Interpretation of S.10(8)

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connor McHugh

Appellant/landlord

Jessica Anderson

Appellant/landlord

Jason Mannette

Respondent/tenant

Kelly Boulton

Respondent/tenant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Appeal From Residential Tenancies Director / Decision on Appeal After Zoom Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.10(8)(f)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act permits termination where family members will only occasionally stay
  2. 2 Whether the landlord in good faith requires possession for the purpose of residence by a family member
  3. 3 Proper construction and application of the definition of 'family member' in s.2(abc)

Ratio Decidendi

Occasional, infrequent visits by a parent do not constitute 'residence' for the purposes of s.10(8)(f)(i); the landlords failed to prove they required possession in good faith for residence by a family member, so the Director's refusal to terminate the tenancy was correctly affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Decision of the Residential Tenancies Director dated April 23, 2021 affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the Decision of the Director dated April 23, 2021 is affirmed.