Supreme Court
Decision Information
Decision information:
Abstract: Transcript of the oral reasons for judgment
Decision Content
Lloyd & Bungay v. Commissioner, 2007 NWTSC 09
S-1-CV-2006000249
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
CHARLENE LLOYD and ERIC BUNDAY
Applicants
- and -
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Respondent
_____________________________________________________
Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Judgment delivered
by the Honourable Justice J.E. Richard, sitting at
Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories on, January
29th, A.D. 2007.
_____________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Ms. C. Lloyd: Applicant
Mr. D. Proctor: Counsel for the Respondent
Official Court Reporters
1 THE COURT: This is an appeal of a
2 decision of the Rental Officer, pursuant to
3 section 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
4 The Appellants here live in a mobile home at
5 number 24 Rycon Trailer Court. They have a lease
6 agreement for the lot on which their mobile home
7 is situated. The owner of the lot is the
8 Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. The
9 lease agreement is between the Appellants and the
10 Commissioner.
11 On September 26th, 2006 these Appellants
12 made an application to the Rental Officer under
13 the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.
14 Specifically, their application was made under
15 section 30 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act
16 requires a landlord to keep the rental premises
17 in good repair. These Appellants sought a ruling
18 from the Rental Officer under section 30 that the
19 landlord, the Commissioner, had breached section
20 30 of the Act.
21 The Rental Officer did not make any ruling
22 as to whether or not the landlord, the
23 Commissioner, had breached section 30 of the Act.
24 Instead, the Rental Officer gave consideration to
25 a preliminary submission made on behalf of the
26 Commissioner to the effect that the Residential
27 Tenancies Act did not apply to the lease
Official Court Reporters
1
1 agreement between these parties and that,
2 therefore, the Rental Officer had no jurisdiction
3 to entertain the application under section 30 of
4 the Act.
5 The Rental Officer, in due course, agreed
6 with this submission and in a decision made on
7 December 2nd, 2006 he ruled that the Residential
8 Tenancies Act did not apply, and he, accordingly,
9 dismissed the Appellants' application. It is
10 this decision of the Rental Officer that is the
11 subject of the appeal before this Court.
12 I have carefully reviewed the record of the
13 Rental Officer which was filed with this Court
14 and which includes a transcript of the oral
15 submissions made to the Rental Officer by the
16 parties at a hearing held on November 21st, 2006.
17 The principal submission made to the Rental
18 Officer on behalf of the landlord was to the
19 effect that in order for a premises to come
20 within the definition of "rental premises" in the
21 Residential Tenancies Act, the parties must have
22 had the intention to bring their relationship
23 under the Residential Tenancies Act. I find
24 there is no merit in this submission. However,
25 it appears that this submission influenced the
26 Rental Officer's decision.
27 The definition of "rental premises" in the
Official Court Reporters
2
1 Act contemplates two types: (a), a living
2 accommodation, or (b), land for a mobile home.
3 The definition further stipulates that the land
4 is rental premises if either (a), the land is, in
5 fact, being used as rental premises; or (b), the
6 land was intended to be used as rental premises.
7 The Rental Officer made a determination on
8 the facts before him that the Appellants'
9 dwelling at number 24 Rycon Trailer Court was a
10 mobile home. The material before the Rental
11 Officer indicates that this land was, in fact,
12 being used as rental premises for a mobile home,
13 no less so than it was two or three years earlier
14 with a different landlord.
15 Lot 8, Block 610, which is the legal
16 description of the land leased from the
17 Commissioner and on which sits the mobile home of
18 the Appellants, is, "land for a mobile home,"
19 being used as rental premises and is, therefore,
20 "rental premises" for purposes of the Residential
21 Tenancies Act.
22 In a decision of this Court in 1990 Justice
23 de Weerdt considered the intention of the
24 Legislature in enacting the Residential Tenancies
25 Act and, in particular, its provisions for
26 enabling tenants to assert their legal rights
27 against landlords with respect to rental
Official Court Reporters
3
1 premises. He stated:
2 "Bearing in mind the usual disparity
3 of bargaining power and financial
4 resources between such tenants and
5 their landlords, the Act is
6 evidently intended to restore the
7 balance of power through the public
8 employment of a Rental Officer to
9 try and mediate and, if necessary,
10 to adjudicate disputes between
11 them."
12 With the greatest of respect to the Rental
13 Officer, his decision on the applicability of the
14 Residential Tenancies Act is incorrect.
15 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
16 Rental Officer's decision is set aside and the
17 Rental Officer is directed to consider the
18 tenants' application on its merits.
19 Now, is there any clarification required
20 from either of you, Ms. Lloyd, Mr. Proctor?
21 MR. PROCTOR: No, sir.
22 THE COURT: Fine, then. We will close
23 court.
24 MS. LLOYD: There was the question of
25 legal fees.
26 THE COURT: Yes. I saw that. I believe
27 it was in your brief, Ms. Lloyd. I, in this
Official Court Reporters
4
1 Court, do not have any jurisdiction, speaking of
2 jurisdiction, to award fees or not in proceedings
3 before the Rental Officer. If anybody, it is the
4 Rental Officer to decide that.
5 MS. LLOYD: Okay. Thank you.
6 THE COURT: So we will close court.
7 .....................................
8
9
10 Certified to be a true and
accurate transcript pursuant
11 to Rules 723 and 724 of the
Supreme Court Rules.
12
13
______________________________
14
Jill MacDonald, CSR(A), RPR
15 Court Reporter
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Official Court Reporters
5
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.