Millman v. McRiner

Millman v. McRiner

The court refused to change the March 1, 2017 order: the original adjudicator did not intend to award money for items left on the premises, tenants should have sought clarification at the time rather than unilaterally withholding funds, and therefore the attempted deduction of $348.74 is not authorized; the March 1, 2017 order stands and the current adjudicator will not alter it or opine on the Sheriff's enforcement actions.

Citation
2018 NSSM 101
Parties
Tenant (appellant): Christian Millman; Tenant (appellant): Michelle Millman; Landlord (respondent): Scott McRiner
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Clarification of Prior Adjudicator's Order / Post Judgment Enforcement Dispute
Outcome
The March 1, 2017 order is not changed; the tenants' request for clarification/variation is denied.
Legal Topics
Clarification of Judgment, Abandoned Property, Set Off/deduction From Judgment, Sheriff Execution and Garnishment, Finality of Orders
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Small Claims Court Enforcement of Judgments Property Law Clarification of Judgment Abandoned Property Set Off/deduction From Judgment Sheriff Execution and Garnishment +1 more

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Millman

Tenant (appellant)

Michelle Millman

Tenant (appellant)

Scott McRiner

Landlord (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Clarification of Prior Adjudicator's Order / Post Judgment Enforcement Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenants could unilaterally deduct the cash value of items left on the premises from the judgment
  2. 2 Whether the original adjudicator intended to award monetary compensation for items left on the premises
  3. 3 Whether the current adjudicator should vary or clarify the prior adjudicator's order

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to change the March 1, 2017 order: the original adjudicator did not intend to award money for items left on the premises, tenants should have sought clarification at the time rather than unilaterally withholding funds, and therefore the attempted deduction of $348.74 is not authorized; the March 1, 2017 order stands and the current adjudicator will not alter it or opine on the Sheriff's enforcement actions.

Court Disposition

The March 1, 2017 order is not changed; the tenants' request for clarification/variation is denied.

Orders

  • March 1, 2017 order of Adjudicator Peter Lederman QC remains unchanged.
  • Tenants are not entitled to monetary compensation for items left on the premises and may not unilaterally deduct their asserted value from the judgment.