Claimant Wins Hot Tub and Personal Items in Small Claims Court Case
📌 In brief
In a recent case in Nova Scotia's Small Claims Court, a person successfully recovered the purchase price of a hot tub and personal items from their former partner. The court ordered the return of the hot tub or reimbursement of its cost, along with the return of personal items left behind.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant is entitled to the return of personal items left with a partner and reimbursement for the purchase price of a jointly acquired asset.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant is entitled to the return of personal items and reimbursement for the hot tub's purchase price.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a case heard in the Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia, the claimant sought the return of a hot tub and personal items left with a former partner. The court ruled in favour of the claimant, ordering the return of the hot tub or reimbursement of its purchase price, and the return of personal items.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2026 NSSM 5 Date: 20260225 Docket: 544094 Registry: Yarmouth Between: [NAME] v. [NAME]: [NAME]: October 23 and November 12, 2025 Written submissions filed as of November 24, 2025 Decision: February 25, 2026 Counsel: [redacted] [NAME], self-represented By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] The claimant, [NAME], seeks from the defendant, [NAME]: (a) return of a hot tub or compensation for its installation in the amount of $10,344.24, (b) return of clothes or $2,300 value, and (c) return of funds paid to install second floor bath in the amount of $3,000. [ 2 ] During the hearing Mr. [NAME] modified his claim for return of clothes to one pair of shoes. [NAME] agreed to pay Mr. [NAME] “the $79USD at the Canadian rates at time of purchase”. Facts [ 3 ] Mr. [NAME] and [NAME] became romantically involved around February 2022. As of the summer of 2024 the parties cohabited in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Plans were made to modify [NAME]’ residence to better accommodate Mr. [NAME]. Mr. [NAME] contributed to living expenses and invested in the purchase of a hot tub to be installed at the property. [ 4 ] On September 10, 2024, Mr. [NAME] departed for Calgary to address personal matters including the sale of certain assets. Upon his departure he left personal items including a pair of shoes at [NAME]’ property. [ 5 ] Mr. [NAME] purchased the hot tub on July 30, 2024 from Canadian Tire with a 24-month equal payment plan. The hot tub was installed in early August 2024 and Mr. [NAME] is continuing to pay for it. The investment was made with an expectation that the relationship would continue and that he would benefit from using the hot tub over an extended period of time. [ 6 ] [NAME] confirmed that the hot tub can be removed from the property, albeit with some alterations to the deck that was modified to accommodate it. [NAME] informed the Court that the hot tub is hardwired and a professional electrician was paid $1,030 to install a 50-amp power box. The cost of repair work that would be required is not entirely clear, but [NAME] estimated it would cost over a thousand dollars to restore 12 feet of railing. Analysis [ 7 ] Mr. [NAME] is entitled to the return of any personal items that he left in the care of [NAME]. [ADDRESS] will award general damages of $100 to compensate Mr. [NAME] for the loss of his shoes. [ 8 ] Mr. [NAME] is also entitled to be reimbursed for the value of the hot tub in the purchase amount of $10,344.24. [ 9 ] [ADDRESS] will decline to award any further compensation to Mr. [NAME]. [ADDRESS] is not satisfied that Mr. [NAME]’s financial contributions to [NAME], including any specific payments made to [NAME], are distinguishable from general payments or contributions made by Mr. [NAME] to support the parties’ shared living expenses. [ 10 ] [ADDRESS] has considered [NAME]’ argument that the value of the hot tub should be offset by her labour in preparing properties owned by Mr. [NAME] for sale. For the purpose of the hearing, [NAME] prepared an accounting of her labour including deep cleaning, painting, organization, preparing an inventory, and shopping. However, [NAME]’ evidence was that, at the time, she was happy to assist Mr. [NAME] with the belief that they were working toward a future together. At the time, there was no expectation of any financial reward or credit for her efforts. In particular, the Court does not accept that Mr. [NAME] is liable to pay $8,600 as calculated by [NAME] for the value of her efforts between August 2022 and September 2023. Conclusion [ 11 ] [ADDRESS] shall award Mr. [NAME] the value of the hot tub in the amount of $10,344.24 as well as general damages of $100. Mr. [NAME] is also entitled to the filing fee of $199.35. [ 12 ] If [NAME] elects to do so, and as an alternative to making payment of $10,344.24, [NAME] may take steps to have the hot tub removed from her property and made available for pick-up by Mr. [NAME] or his agents. If such efforts are made, the Court will decline to award any compensation for repair or restoration costs. [ 13 ] No further compensation shall be awarded. [NAME], Small Claims Court Adjudicator
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The claimant is entitled to the return of any personal items left in the care of the respondent, with general damages of $100 awarded for the loss of shoes.
- The claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for the value of the hot tub in the purchase amount of $10,344.24.
- The court is not satisfied that the claimant's financial contributions to the respondent are distinguishable from general payments made to support shared living expenses.
- The court does not accept that the claimant is liable to pay $8,600 for the value of the respondent's efforts, as there was no expectation of financial reward at the time.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent's argument that the value of the hot tub should be offset by her labour in preparing the claimant's properties for sale was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court decided that the claimant is entitled to the return of a hot tub or reimbursement of its purchase price, and the return of personal items.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the return of a hot tub and personal items left behind by the claimant with a former partner.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant because the hot tub was a jointly acquired asset and the personal items belonged to the claimant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the hot tub was a jointly acquired asset and the personal items belonged to the claimant.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to recover the purchase price of a jointly acquired asset and personal items left behind.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.