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.