Alderwood Village v. Uwins

Alderwood Village v. Uwins

The notation on the Lot Inspection was clear and unambiguous: unfinished items were to be completed by June 15, 2016 and would become the purchaser's responsibility only if not completed by that date; the siding work was completed before June 15, 2016, therefore the tenant had no liability; alternatively, any ambiguity would be construed against the landlord (drafter). The appeal is dismissed on that basis.

Citation
2018 NSSM 40
Parties
Landlord (appellant): Alderwood Village; Tenant (respondent): Michelle Uwins
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancies Appeal / Decision on Appeal (small Claims Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; tenant not liable for siding costs
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Contract Interpretation, Contra Proferentum, Lease Obligations, Costs Limitation
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Contract Interpretation Contra Proferentum Lease Obligations +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alderwood Village

Landlord (appellant)

Michelle Uwins

Tenant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Residential Tenancies Appeal / Decision on Appeal (small Claims Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant was contractually responsible for installing vinyl siding on the shed
  2. 2 Whether the tenant fulfilled any contractual obligations regarding the shed siding
  3. 3 Whether the matter was barred by res judicata from prior proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The notation on the Lot Inspection was clear and unambiguous: unfinished items were to be completed by June 15, 2016 and would become the purchaser's responsibility only if not completed by that date; the siding work was completed before June 15, 2016, therefore the tenant had no liability; alternatively, any ambiguity would be construed against the landlord (drafter). The appeal is dismissed on that basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; tenant not liable for siding costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Each party to bear their own costs; costs limited under s.17D(2) to filing fees which were borne by the landlord