Halifax landlord must pay up for ‘renovicting’ tenant during former provincewide ban

A Halifax landlord has to pay more than $13,000 to a former tenant after a Nova Scotia judge found they “renovicted” her while a provincewide ban was still in place.

Justice Glen G. McDougall dismissed Bluenose Inn & Suites’ appeal of a previous small claims court decision from January 2023, finding that the landlord had evicted a tenant “for the purpose of a demolition” — which was not allowed at the time the eviction notice was issued.

On March 1, 2022, Brandy McGuire and other tenants living at the Bluenose Inn & Suites were told they would have to leave within 60 days because management planned to “retire” the property. The property had once operated as a motel, but also rented out longer-term suites.

At the time, there was a provincewide ban on renovictions. A renoviction is when a landlord forces residents to leave a property in order to renovate and then leases the space to tenants at a higher cost.

Story continues below advertisement

Nova Scotia’s government banned renovictions in November 2020 in connection with the COVID-19 state of emergency, but both the state of emergency and the ban were lifted on March 21, 2022.

Brandy McGuire stands outside the Bluenose Inn & Suites in Halifax, Thursday, April 21, 2022.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Lyndsay Armstrong

The adjudicator from the initial small claims decision said the Bluenose Inn & Suites building was a “little past its prime,” and McGuire, who rented a one-bedroom apartment for $1,400 per month, had problems including low water pressure and spotty internet.

Breaking news from Canada and around the world
sent to your email, as it happens.

On April 27, days before the initial deadline to vacate, the landlord sent another notice to tenants extending the eviction date to July 31, 2022. But by the time the notice was issued, McGuire had already left: she had found another apartment, but it was in an “inconvenient” location and the rent there was “significantly higher — $2,100 plus utilities.”

“The Tenant said it was the best place she could find under such short notice in a difficult housing market,” the decision said.

Story continues below advertisement

Small claims decision

John Ghosn, a 25 per cent partner in Bluenose Inn and Suites and the landlord’s witness at the small claims court hearing in 2023, said the building was always seen as a site for redevelopment. They had obtained a development permit in 2017 and were given five years to proceed with demolition and construction.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

“For various reasons, the development stalled until 2020, when the pandemic created additional obstacles,” the decision said, noting that the building was still offering long-term rental units when McGuire applied for one in July 2020.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Ghosn — who took over managing the property in early 2022 after his partner developed health issues — had testified during the small claims hearing that he applied for an extension of the development permit in 2022, and now has until 2027 to proceed.

There was no timetable for the project, and there was no application for the demolition permit.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Small claims adjudicator Eric K. Slone’s decision hinged on whether the term “renoviction” would still apply if there was a delay between the eviction and the demolition. Ultimately, he decided it did.

“In my opinion, the ordinary meaning of the words used is that if the landlord evicts a tenant in order to be able to demolish the structure, then the terms of these new provisions apply, regardless of how long it might take for the demolition to occur,” Slone had said.

Story continues below advertisement

But the landlord appealed the decision, arguing that terminating a lease for the purpose of retiring the building, even if demolition was being considered in the future, is not termination “for the purpose of demolition.”

“According to the Landlord, the fact that it eventually plans to demolish the property does not mean that demolition was the primary purpose for the Tenant’s eviction,” the decision said.

However, McDougall sided with Slone in his decision to dismiss the appeal.

“In my view, the adjudicator did not err in his interpretation,” McDougall’s decision read. “There is no bright line between the Landlord’s decision to ‘retire’ the building and its intention to demolish it.”

Bluenose Inn & Suites must pay a total of $13,662.15 to McGuire, broken down as follows: