Shtabsky and Vollan v. Kison, (1982) 48 A.R. 316 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 48 A.R. 316 (QBM)

Shtabsky v. Kison (1982), 48 A.R. 316 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Shtabsky and Vollan v. Kison

(No. 8203-08536)

Indexed As: Shtabsky and Vollan v. Kison

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

April 15, 1982.

Summary:

A landlord applied under s. 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act for possession of rented premises and judgment for arrears of rent. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined to grant the order for possession but gave judgment to the landlord for the arrears of rent.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6684

Notice of termination - Time for giving - A landlord served a notice of termination on February 19, 1982, ordering the tenant out by March 5, 1982 - When the tenant did not leave, the landlord applied for possession of the rented premises - The tenant argued he had not been given "at least 14 days' notice" within the meaning of s. 23(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined to grant the order for possession - The court stated that a notice under s. 23 that does not give a minimum of 14 "whole" days' notice is ineffective - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 8791

Distress - Seizure - Costs of - Onus of proof on landlord - A landlord seized a vehicle for overdue rent and then applied for judgment for arrears of rent plus costs - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench gave judgment for the landlord but declined to award costs - The court held that the landlord failed to discharge the onus on him in light of s. 35 of the Seizures Act, to show that there was no duplication of costs when he exercised a judicial and nonjudicial remedy at the same time - See paragraphs 16 to 22.

Time - Topic 783

Computation of time - Particular terms - "At least" - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the phrase "at least 14 days' notice" as used in s. 23(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act meant a minimum of 14 "whole" days' notice - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Words and Phrases

At least 14 days' notice - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of the phrase "at least 14 days' notice" as it appears in s. 23(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-6 - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Staiger, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 457; 2 A.R. 427, affd. 4 A.R. 494, refd to. [para. 9].

Smith v. Haight (1900), 4 Terr. L.R. 387 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Hoyes v. Creery, [1918] 1 W.W.R. 873 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Fawell v. Andrew, [1917] 2 W.W.R. 400 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

McKeown v. Lechtzer (1914), 5 W.W.R. 778 (Man. K.B.), affd. 20 D.L.R. 986 (C.A.), 7 W.W.R. 1394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Landlord and Tenant Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-6, sect. 23(2) [paras. 6 to 13].

Interpretation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-7, sect. 22(3) [para. 11].

Seizures Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-11, sect. 35 [paras. 16 to 23].

Counsel:

B.J. Rudder, counsel for the applicants;

Respondent appeared in person.

This application was heard before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on April 15, 1982: