336580 Nova Scotia Limited v. Spelman

336580 Nova Scotia Limited v. Spelman

The appeal is dismissed because the landlord failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had all necessary permits and that he in good faith required vacant possession for renovations under s.10AB(3); evidence showed the work was not proved necessary and the primary motive appeared to be rent increases, so the Director's refusal to order termination is confirmed.

Citation
2023 NSSM 40
Parties
Appellant (landlord): 3336580 Nova Scotia Limited; Respondent (tenant): Bianca Spelman; Respondent (tenant): Christopher Stevens; Respondent (tenant): Jen MacDonald; Respondent (tenant): Christopher Faubert
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Appeal Decision (hearing Via Zoom)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Director of Residential Tenancies orders of March 21, 2023 confirmed
Legal Topics
Renoviction, Vacant Possession, Building Permits, Good Faith, Eviction Moratorium, Rent Increases
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Landlord and Tenant Law Administrative Law Housing Law Renoviction Vacant Possession Building Permits Good Faith +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

3336580 Nova Scotia Limited

Appellant (landlord)

Bianca Spelman

Respondent (tenant)

Christopher Stevens

Respondent (tenant)

Jen MacDonald

Respondent (tenant)

Christopher Faubert

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Appeal Decision (hearing Via Zoom)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord satisfied s.10AB(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act by proving necessary permits and approvals
  2. 2 Whether landlord in good faith requires vacant possession to perform renovations so extensive as to require a building permit
  3. 3 Whether proposed renovations are a pretext to displace tenants for rent increases (renoviction)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the landlord failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had all necessary permits and that he in good faith required vacant possession for renovations under s.10AB(3); evidence showed the work was not proved necessary and the primary motive appeared to be rent increases, so the Director's refusal to order termination is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Director of Residential Tenancies orders of March 21, 2023 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the Director of Residential Tenancies' March 21, 2023 orders in the three files are confirmed