Digest: Embee Diamond Technologies Inc. v Prince Albert (City), 2018 SKCA 44

Date:June 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 44

Docket Number: CACV 3078 , CA17155

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-06-18

Judges:

  • Richards
  • Caldwell
  • Herauf

Subjects:

  • Statutes � Interpretation � Landlord and Tenant Act, Section 50
  • Statutes � Interpretation � Tax Enforcement Act, Section 36
  • Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 11-1

Digest: The appellant appealed from the decision of a Queen�s Bench chambers judge that dismissed its claim that the respondent had not complied with The Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) when it took possession of premises in which the appellant had been a tenant (see: 2017 SKQB 128). The respondent had taken possession because the registered owner of the building, MFN, was in arrear of taxes. The appellant and MFN were related companies. The respondent directed its tax notices and notification to quit the building to E.B., who was involved in both companies. The appellant argued that the judge failed to find that it was a tenant of the registered owner of the building, MFN. As it was, then s. 36 of The Tax Enforcement Act (TEA) applied and the appellant was deemed to be a tenant of the respondent and the LTA applied. Under s. 50 of the LTA, the respondent was required to apply for judicial relief if it wanted to take possession and the appellant had been entitled to seek injunctions against the respondent pursuant to s. 10 of the LTA.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the judge had not erred in finding that the appellant was not a tenant. However, the issue of whether there had been a lease was not material because s. 36(1) of the TEA is not based upon the existence of a lease between a tax debtor who has lost title to a property and a tenant of the tax-debtor. Section 36(1) applied if a person is �in occupation of� the land for which title has passed to a municipality by virtue of tax enforcement proceedings. In this case the appellant had established that it was in occupation and under s. 36(1) was deemed to be a tenant when the respondent took title to the property.
...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP