GNF Investments v. Vriend et al., 2016 NSSC 116

• Judge: Hood, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2016 NSSC 116;(2016), 372 N.S.R.(2d) 396 (SC)

GNF Inv. v. Vriend (2016), 372 N.S.R.(2d) 396 (SC);

    1172 A.P.R. 396

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.010

GNF Investments (appellant) v. Johnathan Vriend, Samantha White and David Pond (respondents)

(Hfx No. 447655; 2016 NSSC 116)

Indexed As: GNF Investments v. Vriend et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Hood, J.

April 19, 2016.

Summary:

A Small Claims adjudicator accepted the evidence of a tenant's doctor that the tenant suffered a significant deterioration of health and concluded that the tenant was therefore entitled to terminate its tenancy with the landlord pursuant to s. 10C(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord appealed, asserting that the doctor's certificate which simply checked off a box on Form H was insufficient evidence of "substantial deterioration of health". The landlord also asserted that the adjudicator erred in applying s. 10C(1) by not concluding that the significant determination of health actually led to the tenant's inability to continue the lease.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6688.1

Termination, forfeiture and reentry - Notice of termination - Early termination for health reasons - A Small Claims adjudicator accepted the evidence of a tenant's doctor that the tenant suffered a significant deterioration of health and concluded that the tenant was therefore entitled to terminate its tenancy with the landlord pursuant to s. 10C(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act - The landlord appealed, asserting that Form H, in which the doctor simply checked of a box indicating that a substantial deterioration of health had led to an inability to continue the lease, was insufficient evidence of "substantial deterioration of health" - The landlord further asserted that the adjudicator erred by not applying the second step in the two step process under s. 10C(1) (i.e., by not concluding that the significant determination of health led to the tenant's inability to continue the lease) - The landlord also argued that the tenant's problems with a co-tenant was not the type of concern that the legislature intended to address - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal - There was nothing in the Act which led to the conclusion that there had to be some problem associated with the physical premises before s. 10C(1) applied - The principal issue before the adjudicator was the issue of significant deterioration of health and the adjudicator focussed on that - There was no indication that the landlord did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor about Form H - The adjudicator was alive to the potential role of the doctor as the tenant's advocate, but he accepted her evidence - The adjudicator, in addition to referring to the tenant's problem with the co-tenant, referred to the conditions suffered by the tenant as being exacerbated by the "living conditions" - The reference to "the living conditions" combined with Form H and the doctor's testimony, satisfied the court that the second step, although not explicitly referred to, was considered by the adjudicator.

Counsel:

Daniel MacKenzie, for the appellant;

Ryan Hill with Susan Young and Megan Deveaux, for the respondents, Johnathan Vriend and Samantha White;

David Pond, not appearing.

This appeal was heard and orally decided at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on April 19, 2016, by Hood, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following written judgment on April 29, 2016.