Elm Investments Limited v. Brown

Elm Investments Limited v. Brown

Parties formed a tenancy at will because the alleged five-year lease was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; Defendants occupied for nine months and are liable for rent at the agreed rate of $1,500/month plus HST by operation of law; Defendants are not entitled to an equitable set-off for improvements because rescission is not available and unjust enrichment is not established, therefore judgment for Claimant for rent arrears and costs.

Citation
2018 NSSM 96
Parties
Claimant: Elm Investments Limited; Defendant: Jody Lee Brown; Defendant: Nicole Elizabeth Brown
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Small Claims — Landlord and Tenant (commercial) / Decision After Hearing (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant
Legal Topics
Formation of Lease, Tenancy at Will, Part Performance, Rescission, Unjust Enrichment, Rent Arrears, Set Off for Improvements, HST on Commercial Rent, Fixtures Vs Chattels
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Equity Tax (hst) Property Law (fixtures) Statute of Frauds Formation of Lease +8 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elm Investments Limited

Claimant

Jody Lee Brown

Defendant

Nicole Elizabeth Brown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims — Landlord and Tenant (commercial) / Decision After Hearing (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties formed a binding lease and its terms
  2. 2 Whether HST was included or payable
  3. 3 Whether Defendants liable for rent for period in occupation

Ratio Decidendi

Parties formed a tenancy at will because the alleged five-year lease was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; Defendants occupied for nine months and are liable for rent at the agreed rate of $1,500/month plus HST by operation of law; Defendants are not entitled to an equitable set-off for improvements because rescission is not available and unjust enrichment is not established, therefore judgment for Claimant for rent arrears and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant

Orders

  • Judgment for Claimant against Defendants for debt (rent and HST) $15,525.00
  • Costs to issue and serve claim $285.60