Johnston v. Workman

Johnston v. Workman

The landlord fell slightly short of proving on the balance of probabilities that the tenant's conduct and the boyfriend's presence met the threshold for vacant possession; unreliable second‑hand evidence and lack of conclusive proof led the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the Director's order, while warning the tenant to comply with tenancy rules.

Citation
2022 NSSM 56
Parties
Appellant (tenant): Jasmine Johnston; Respondent (landlord): Kari Workman (Metropolitan Regional Housing Association)
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Hearing De Novo Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated August 29, 2022 set aside.
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Noise Complaints, Unauthorized Occupant, Protection of Property Act, Subsidized Housing
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancies Housing Eviction Administrative Law Vacant Possession Noise Complaints Unauthorized Occupant Protection of Property Act +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jasmine Johnston

Appellant (tenant)

Kari Workman (Metropolitan Regional Housing Association)

Respondent (landlord)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Appeal From Director of Residential Tenancies / Hearing De Novo Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant's conduct justified granting vacant possession/eviction
  2. 2 Whether the presence of the boyfriend constituted an unauthorized occupant breaching tenancy rules
  3. 3 Whether the Director of Residential Tenancies' order should be set aside on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord fell slightly short of proving on the balance of probabilities that the tenant's conduct and the boyfriend's presence met the threshold for vacant possession; unreliable second‑hand evidence and lack of conclusive proof led the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the Director's order, while warning the tenant to comply with tenancy rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated August 29, 2022 set aside.

Orders

  • Order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated August 29, 2022 is set aside