CAPREIT v. Wagstaff

CAPREIT v. Wagstaff

The adjudicator held the landlord did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in withholding consent under s.9B because legitimate, evidence-supported concerns (inability to vet transient guests, risk of converting units into hotel-like use, security, noise, wear-and-tear, COVID-19 implications and processing burdens) provided a credible rationale for refusal.

Citation
2020 NSSM 27
Parties
Appellant/landlord: CAPREIT; Respondent/tenant: John Adam Wagstaff
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Appeal Decision (appeal of Director's Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; tenant's original complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Subletting, Short Term Rental (airbnb), License Versus Lease, Unreasonable Withholding of Consent, Section 9 B RTA Compliance, COVID 19 Considerations
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Landlord Tenant Law Property Law Administrative Law Subletting Short Term Rental (airbnb) License Versus Lease Unreasonable Withholding of Consent +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAPREIT

Appellant/landlord

John Adam Wagstaff

Respondent/tenant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Appeal Decision (appeal of Director's Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Airbnb occupancies constitute a sublet or a licence
  2. 2 Whether the landlord arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld consent under s.9B of the Residential Tenancies Act
  3. 3 Whether tenant may use Airbnb to generate short-term occupancy while head lease remains

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator held the landlord did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in withholding consent under s.9B because legitimate, evidence-supported concerns (inability to vet transient guests, risk of converting units into hotel-like use, security, noise, wear-and-tear, COVID-19 implications and processing burdens) provided a credible rationale for refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; tenant's original complaint dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and the original complaint of the Tenant is dismissed
  • No costs to any party