Anctil v. Ranjbar

Anctil v. Ranjbar

Applying the single inquiry from Simmons, the Adjudicator found on the balance of probabilities that the Respondents failed to provide credible, consistent evidence of a genuine intention to occupy the units: conflicting affidavits, nonappearance of key owners, lack of current addresses, vacant units left unoccupied, and financial motives undermined the claim of good faith; therefore the Director's orders for possession were reversed.

Citation
2025 NSSM 47
Parties
Tenant/appellant: Julia Anctil; Tenant/appellant: Vanessa Lockerbie; Tenant/appellant: Jason Beanlands; Landlord/respondent: Foad Ranjbar; Landlord/respondent: Hamed Ranjbar; Landlord/respondent: Stephany Leemburg
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancies Appeal / Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies; Decision by Small Claims Court Adjudicator
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Director's orders dated November 19, 2024 reversed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Owner Occupation, Good Faith, Vacant Possession, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Landlord and Tenant Law Administrative Law Property Law Eviction Owner Occupation Good Faith Vacant Possession +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julia Anctil

Tenant/appellant

Vanessa Lockerbie

Tenant/appellant

Jason Beanlands

Tenant/appellant

Foad Ranjbar

Landlord/respondent

Hamed Ranjbar

Landlord/respondent

Stephany Leemburg

Landlord/respondent

Procedural Posture

Residential Tenancies Appeal / Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies; Decision by Small Claims Court Adjudicator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.10(8)(f)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act was satisfied (landlord in good faith requires possession to reside)
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in granting orders for possession based on insufficient or conflicting evidence
  3. 3 Whether attempted use of s.10AA(2)(d)(ii)/DR2 process was valid

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the single inquiry from Simmons, the Adjudicator found on the balance of probabilities that the Respondents failed to provide credible, consistent evidence of a genuine intention to occupy the units: conflicting affidavits, nonappearance of key owners, lack of current addresses, vacant units left unoccupied, and financial motives undermined the claim of good faith; therefore the Director's orders for possession were reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Director's orders dated November 19, 2024 reversed

Orders

  • Both appeals allowed and the orders made by the Director dated November 19, 2024 are reversed