Tenant Loses Case Over Non-Smoking Environment in Nova Scotia

Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: [NAME] v. [COMPANY] , 2026 NSSM 3 Date: 20260212 Docket:  25-546341 Registry: Halifax Between: [NAME] v. [COMPANY]: [NAME], KC Heard: December 9 & 11, 2025 and January 15, 2026, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Decision: February 12, 2026 Counsel: [redacted] By the Court: Introduction: [ 1 ]              The Claimant, [NAME], moved into her apartment, #411 at 60 [NAME], Nova Scotia, on April 8 th , 2025.  She has a year-to-year lease, and the rent is $1680.00. [ 2 ]              60 [NAME] is one of a number of apartment buildings owned by the Landlord, [COMPANY] (“[NAME]”), making up [NAME].  60 [NAME], a four-story complex, has some 60 units with balconies. [ 3 ]              [NAME] says that the Landlord promised that the apartment building she was moving into was smoke free, and that she has suffered damages, saying in her submissions, “the primary mechanism of harm was stress.  That stress arose from three compounding factors: (1) my awareness of the serious health risks of second-hand smoke, (2) repeated invasion of my home by smoke and (3) a sense of helplessness caused by heat and the confusing, ineffective and delayed responses from management that left me unable to ventilate or resolve the problem.  This sustained stress response manifested as sleep disruption, headaches and pain, muscle tension/back/chest pain, appetite loss and reduced work capacity”. [ 4 ]              [NAME] is seeking $27, 108.00 in lost income, and compensation for “excessive exposure to carcinogenic toxins from windows” ($1,260.00 @ $420.00/month), “exposure to carcinogenic toxins from building infrastructure” ($900.00 @ $150.00/month), “reduced use of apartment: windows and balcony” ($3000.00 @ $500.00/month), “reduced enjoyment of apartment” ($600.00 @ $100.00/month). [ 5 ]              She requests compensation for medical expenses relating to three visits to a [NAME] and for a “sciatica physiotherapy course” of $202.00. [ 6 ]              Other out of pocket expenses claimed include miscellaneous items such as purchase of an air purifier, purchase of an air conditioner, and transportation to medical appointments totalling $1230.66. [ 7 ]              There is a request for rent abatement (35% per month for 16 months), “beginning in November, with a formal sunset review at month 16.  If building wide non-smoking is verified (via signage, notices and [NAME] actions), the abatement ends; if not, extend for a defined period (eg. 6 more months) at a reduced rate (e.g., 25% or 30%) with another review”.  The cost of this abatement (the first 16 months) is $9408.00. [ 8 ]              The total monetary compensation sought is $43,939.16. [ 9 ]              Finally, there is a request that the Court order a “Building-Wide Non-[NAME]” containing the following: •         Balcony smoking ban all units as a reasonable house rule to prevent smoke drift and protect quiet enjoyment. •         Designated smoking areas permitted only if [NAME] insists on legacy rights- must be located safely away from doors/windows/ intakes (e.g. 9 – 15 m) and posted. •         Signage plan and log for 60 [NAME] (standardized signs at entrances/elevators/common areas; photo log required). •         Notice [NAME] sequence (education->written warnings->breach- of-statutory-condition notice to quit for substantial interference->  application if repeated/significant interference). •         Interior exposure mitigation: inspection/sealing of outlets/pipe chases/penetrations; ventilation/filter checks; dated work orders. •         Governance: [NAME] to name the [NAME] and [NAME] lead for 60 [NAME] (with business contact info). •         Reporting: 1-page monthly summary to parties/court (signage installed; notices/warnings; mitigation completed; outstanding actions). •         Timelines: o    30-45 days: Signage installed; First education/warning notices; Interior inspections start. o    90 -120 days: Second round [NAME]; Interior ceiling completion. o    12 - 16 months: status review (verified smoke-free or continued measured [NAME]) o    [request for 35% abatement for 16 months referenced above] o    Replacement:  If [NAME] files a building-specific plan consistent with section 20 [of the Lease] and the RTA, that pan may replace these terms upon court approval. Decision: [ 10 ]          I am denying this appeal and affirming the decision of the Director.  [NAME] did not move into a non-smoking apartment building.  Once her conflict with her neighbour who was smoking on his balcony were known, the Landlord took action to address the issue according to the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act , which required balancing the rights and interests of the Tenants in this dispute.  My reasons follow. The Evidence: [ 11 ]          At the hearing, I heard evidence from [NAME], and for the Landlord [NAME] and the Tenant in Apartment #309. (a)   Prior to the Tenancy – the “representation” of a non-smoking apartment building [ 12 ]          [NAME]’s evidence is she had seen some online reviews indicating that there were issues with smoking in the building.  She says that when she met with [NAME], who worked for [NAME] as a Leasing Specialist and Associate Property Manager, and asked if people could smoke outside the building, he said they could not. [ 13 ]          She says he told her that the building was non-smoking, and that she signed a lease based upon that understanding. She says that as a result, she is entitled to a non-smoking building based upon Mr. [NAME]’s representation and the claims of various rental websites that it was a non-smoking building.  Her claim for an order mandating non-smoking in the building, is based upon this exchange and rental websites that described the building as non-smoking. [ 14 ]          In response to this [NAME], Legal Coordinator for [NAME], who represented the Landlord and also gave evidence in this proceeding, says that the [NAME] website did not represent the building as nonsmoking and that they do not control marketing websites.  The evidence provided confirms that [NAME] was not representing the building as non-smoking online. [ 15 ]          In his evidence, Mr. [NAME] said that “he has been telling residents we are converting to a non-smoking building”.  In cross examination he said that he did not remember [NAME] specifically asking about smoking.  To [NAME]’s suggestion that he had told her it was a “complete prohibition”, he responded “at no point did I tell you it was a complete prohibition”. [ 16 ]          The exchange between Mr. [NAME] and [NAME] becomes an issue of credibility.  [NAME] in her evidence and through her interactions with the Landlord in 2025, continued to describe the building as non-smoking.  It was not, but it was what she wished it to be. [ 17 ]          I accept Mr. [NAME]’s evidence that he did not tell [NAME] that the building was non-smoking. [ 18 ]          The evidence of Mr. [NAME] and [NAME] all confirm that in early 2025, the building was not smoke free.  I find that it is more probable than not that Mr. [NAME] told [NAME] that the building was transitioning, than that it was a smoke free building.  She may or may not have misunderstood, but that does not constitute misrepresentation. (a)     [NAME]’s Lease: [ 19 ]          [NAME] signed a year-to-year lease and moved into the building on April 15, 2025.  Central to the dispute between the parties is section 20 of Schedule “A”, Rules and Regulations of that lease, which for her tenancy, constitutes a prohibition on smoking other than in designated areas: Smoking:  The tenant(s) or occupant(s) and their guest(s) are prohibited from engaging in the smoking or burning of tobacco, cigarettes, cannabis, or the burning or smoking (including vaping) of any other substance anywhere in the unit, building or on the property, where applicable, other than in designated smoking areas .  References to “smoking” are deemed to include the smoking or burning of any substances.” [emphasis added] [ 20 ]          By way of foreshadowing, the evidence confirms that the lease of the tenant in Apartment #309 (hereafter “#309”), who became the focus of [NAME]’s concern over smoking, did not at the time of the commencement of [NAME]’s lease, mention smoking in any way. He was permitted to smoke in his unit, on this balcony, on the property.   Also, #309’s lease has an annual renewal date of February. [ 21 ]          [NAME] characterizes her lease as non-smoking as the building did not have a designated smoking area.  I do not agree, as the Landlord could have at any time designated such an area and remained within the terms of her lease.  I find that [NAME]’s lease was not a non-smoking lease, but a restricted smoking lease, in accordance with the transition that was underway in the building.  By the summer of 2025, new and renewing leases in the building completely prohibited smoking on the property. (b)  The Dispute with #309 over smoking: [ 22 ]          [NAME] made her first complaint regarding smoking on May 8, 2025, to [NAME], Associate Property Manager , saying that #309 was smoking on his balcony.  She complained again on the 9 th and 15 th , and her “Smoke Log” (to be discussed below), says that #309 did not smoke between May 15 and May 29 th , 2025, “after [NAME] spoke to him [on the 15 th ]”. [ 23 ]          On June 4 th , 2025, [NAME] issued a written complaint, in which she requests that [NAME] “honour your advertising and make this a non-smoking building by 1) initiating the four month notice process and 2) banning smoking on balconies immediately.”  I find that this email confirms that [NAME] now knew that she was living in a building that allowed smoking. [ 24 ]          [NAME] encouraged the Landlord that these changes would result in “happier tenants”, and would attract non-smokers who had “good energy”, and well as providing the ability to “change the [NAME] market rate for units that some smokers may decide to leave after the four month notices.”  She concluded this email by saying “I know for myself, I will be unable to continue living in this smoking building.  I strongly urge you to take proper legal steps to make this a non-smoking building”. [ 25 ]          In response to her email, [NAME] set up a meeting for June 19 th , 2025 with [NAME], Operations Manager, which was later changed to June 23, 2025. [ 26 ]          [NAME] summarized the meeting in an email that same day, saying “As discussed, we would be following up to ensure that our clause [sic] continue to transition our buildings to non-smoking being sent out upon resident renewals.  That being said, although its in the lease (section 20) for newer residents of the property to not smoke, there are older residents where this does need to be addressed”. [ 27 ]          He concludes “I empathize with your feedback and the option of you leaving your unit due to this was also presented. Again, thank you for your time and feedback and we will do our best to remind all residents of their actions that may affect the living conditions of others.” [ 28 ]          [NAME] was not happy with this response.  She responded to say that [NAME] “refused to have the call recorded”, and “refused to answer the questions I had for him today, such as about serving the Form N5 to the tenant in #309, and “why it is taking him so long to respond to my requests”. [ 29 ]          A Form N5 may have initially been mentioned by someone at [NAME], it is not clear.  A Form N5 is not a form under the Residential Tenancies Act, R.S.N.S 1989, c. 401 (the “RTA”) [ 30 ]          A Form N5 is an Ontario document which is used as a first level notice of termination of the lease for substantial interference with quiet enjoyment, damage or overcrowding.  It can be voided by resolution within 7 days.  A second Form N5 cannot be voided. [ 31 ]          There is not direct analogy to a Form N5 under the RTA.  Nothing can be resolved in seven days.  The process is to file a Form J, which allows the Landlord to apply for compliance with the lease, with or without also filing a Notice to Quit and seeking termination or compliance with the lease. [ 32 ]          This process calls for mediation and or a hearing.  There are no seven-day deadlines under this process, rather, it usually takes about a month or more for the process to proceed according to the legislative requirements for notice and mediation.  It is also not the first resort in the event of a tenant dispute. [ 33 ]          On July 7, 2025 [NAME] made a request to have heat pumps installed in her apartment at her own expense, which was denied.  She purchased an air conditioner and other items detailed in her claim.  She says she was not given reasons for the denial of her request, and the evidence supports that that was the case. (c)    The Application to the Director of Residential Tenancies [ 34 ]          On July 14, 2024, [NAME] made application to Residential Tenancies.by way of a Form J, on the following grounds: Breach of section 9A3c of the RTA: Some tenants leases say non-smoking and others say smoking. Building being made non-smoking in December 2023. Breach of statutory conditions for condition of premises fit for habitation: Carcinogenic toxins in second-hand smoke entering through open windows. Breach of statutory conditions for good behavior: Permanently “grandfathering” of smokers. Breach of statutory conditions for good behavior: Not responding to my urgent requests. It is unreasonable that there has been no response to my request since May 2025. Misrepresentation. Building advertised on line is non-smoking. Leasing agent told me there is no smoking inside outside building. [ 35 ]          Again, this application confirms that [NAME] knew that some leases allowed for smoking. [ 36 ]          The Director of Residential Tenancies issued a decision dismissing [NAME]’s application on August 20, 2025, on the grounds that the evidence did not show misrepresentation and false advertising by the Landlord, that her medical evidence did not prove her health issues were related to second hand smoke, that residential tenancies does not award punitive damages, and there was no evidence that the Landlord was in breach of their obligations. [ 37 ]          That decision was appealed to this Court by [NAME] 28, 2025, saying that she believed that the board did not have “all the evidence”. [ 38 ]          I will now review the Landlord’s response to some of the issues [NAME] raised in her appeal which she seeks compensation for.  The details of her claim were reviewed at the commencement of this decision. (d) The request for heat pumps and sealing of her apartment unit from outside air: [ 39 ]          With respect to the building change issues, I will review the evidence of [NAME] Associate Director and Acting Operations Manager ([NAME] had left [NAME] in September of 2025 and did not testify in this hearing). [ 40 ]          [NAME] explained that the air filtration in the building at 60 Ocean Brook comes from a fan on the roof. It is an older building.  A gap at the bottom of the door of every unit allows air to circulate around the building. There is no air conditioning. [ 41 ]          Odors and smoke, she says, are difficult to manage even in a non-smoking. building. With respect to [NAME]'s desire to seal her unit off from the possibility of smoke getting in, she says that preventing air flow would contribute of mold growth and would in any event be impossible given the configuration of the building. [ 42 ]          [NAME], Operations Manager, gave evidence that with respect to [NAME]’s desire to insulate her apartment from smoke, his understanding from speaking to their technician was that there was no way to isolate the unit and still get air flow into it.  The technician did not testify before me. (e)   The transition to non-smoking [ 43 ]          With respect to CAPRIETS plan to move to non-smoking, [NAME] testified that not the entire portfolio of [NAME] buildings were not yet smoke free. [ 44 ]          She says the discussions in the company began in 2023 aimed at planning for smoke free buildings, and in the summer of 2025, new lease packages began to be sent out at 60 Oceanbrook.  These lease packages were being sent out early enough so that the four-month notice required to change a lease which allowed smoking to non-smoking status was given prior to the lease renewal date. [ 45 ]          During the fall of 2025, the process of giving notices continued.  [NAME] says that the main impetus, was the extreme drought and fire risk of the summer of 2025, and some complaints including [NAME]’s. [ 46 ]          For [NAME], a major factor in converting [NAME]’s buildings to non-smoking was a dumpster fire at their [ADDRESS] property in the summer of 2025, caused by cigarettes being thrown off a balcony. [ 47 ]          [NAME] testified to his responding to many complaints from #309. He said that there had been discussion of a designated smoking area in May of 2025, but it was concluded that it wasn't a solution. [ 48 ]          When asked by [NAME] in cross examination if he had told her smokers could “stay until they were dead” (this related to a dispute between [NAME] and [NAME] as to whether he had described smokers as “grandfathered”), his response was that they could certainly stay, but they could not smoke either on or outside the property once their lease became non-smoking. [ 49 ]          I will add that the details of the landlord’s plan to move to a non-smoking portfolio were the impetus for some lengthy phone calls, essentially discovery examinations, between myself, [NAME] and [NAME] in the fall of 2025 as [NAME] sought further disclosure from [NAME]. [ 50 ]          [NAME] wanted [NAME] to produce documents showing the [NAME] changes and plans for moving to non-smoking at 60 [NAME] and identify one person in charge of the transition. [ 51 ]          The reality was [NAME]’s plan was simply that under the RTA, they would start transitioning leases, giving the necessary four months notice of a rule change.  The evidence is that this process commences into 2026.  However, the dispute between [NAME] and #309, led to actions outside this transition process. (f)    The Escalating Dispute with #309: [ 52 ]          [NAME] left [NAME] on September 19th, 2025, and when [NAME] took over his role, she met with #309 to explain the issue. [ 53 ]          A “Smoking Considerations” letter had been sent to #309 on August 28, 2025, asking that he not spoke on his balcony and explaining the issues with second hand smoke, while acknowledging his lease allowed for smoking. [ 54 ]          [NAME] says that this letter was sent only because she had appealed the Director’s order.  [NAME] says it was because at the hearing before the Director, [NAME] disclosed that #309 was still smoking on his balcony. [ 55 ]          In late September of 2025, after [NAME] was in her role, #309 complained to [NAME] that [NAME] was coming out on her balcony to see if he was smoking and had taken his picture.  He characterized this as harassment. [ 56 ]          On October 7th, 2025, [NAME], who had been involved in the issue since the complaint to residential tenancies, wrote to [NAME] saying: We have received reports that you have been filming the neighboring resident and making verbal comments from your window. We understand that the resident has personally requested that this behavior stop and we have also been informed that the police have been contacted on at least two occasions in relation to these incidents. We kindly ask that you refrain from this behavior moving forward. Should you have any concerns or complaints regarding your neighbors’ activities, we respectfully request that you direct them to the Management office. This will allow us to address the matter appropriately, and directly with the other resident.  When submitting a complaint, please include the nature of the concern along with the date and time of the occurrence. You are also welcome to contact the office at the time of the incident so that we may investigate properly. [ 57 ]          [NAME] responded by sending a lengthy request for documents from CAPRIET relating to the upcoming Small Claims hearing. [ 58 ]          The tenant from #309 testified before me to living in the building for thirteen years.  The first complaint that he had with respect to his smoking was in May of 2025 from [NAME]. [ 59 ]          He says he called the police twice and called residential tenancies twice regarding [NAME] watching him on his balcony and taking his picture.  He was also contacting [NAME] claiming harassment by [NAME] in the fall of 2025. [ 60 ]          The evidence is not entirely clear, perhaps due to the Landlord’s desire to protect #309’s privacy, but it confirms that a Form J was filed regarding #309 in the fall of 2025, and a mediated agreement was arrived at.  [NAME] refused to participate in the Landlord’s application.  At the hearing before me, she said her issue is not with #309 but with the Landlord. [ 61 ]          The new #309 lease effective February 1st 2026 will no longer allow smoking in the unit or the balcony or anywhere else on property.  #309 says “it is his full intention to comply”. [ 62 ]          It was clear from his evidence that #309 considers that his rights have been violated by [NAME]’s behaviour.  He says he told [NAME] within two days of her moving in that the building was a smoking building. Legislation & Caselaw: [ 63 ]          Smoking in Nova Scotia is legal for those over the age of nineteen, but heavily regulated as to location.  This has been the case since the passage of the Smoke Free Places Act, SNS 2002 c. 12 (as am), which was later amended to include cannabis upon legalization of that product. [ 64 ]            Section 5 (1) titled “Enclosed places” section (n) states: 5 (1) No person shall smoke in any enclosed place that is or includes …(n) the common area of a commercial building or multi unit residential building including, but not limited to, corridors, lobbies, stairwells, elevators, escalators, eating areas, washrooms and restrooms; [ 65 ]          Under section 13, provincial Inspectors can issue compliance orders for violations of the Act. [ 66 ]          Halifax Municipal Bylaw N-300 prohibits smoking on municipal property. [ 67 ]          With provincial and municipal properties addressed, the expectation of the legislation is that individuals are permitted to smoke in their own homes. [ 68 ]          This expectation becomes complicated by communal living in an apartment setting. Even without being smoke free, smoking by a neighbour in an apartment setting can become what is described as “private nuisance”, a common law concept that, extremely summarized, allows the law to address unreasonable interference with an individual’s use of their private property. [ 69 ]          This brings me to a consideration of the interaction of the common law tort of “private nuisance” and the provisions of the RTA. [ 70 ]          Smoking disputes before residential tenancies are usually initiated by Landlords in a smoke free building, who may respond to tenant complaints by filing at residential tenancies alleging a breach of section 9 of the RTA, specifically  the requirement for good behaviour in section 3. [ 71 ]          Every lease contains the statutory conditions included under section 9 of the RTA: STATUTORY CONDITIONS Statutory conditions 9 (1) Notwithstanding any lease, agreement, waiver, declaration or other statement to the contrary, where the relation of landlord and tenant exists in respect of residential premises by virtue of this Act or otherwise, there is and is deemed to be an agreement between the landlord and tenant that the following conditions will apply as between the landlord and tenant as statutory conditions governing the residential premises: Statutory Conditions 1. Condition of Premises - The landlord shall keep the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation during the tenancy and shall comply with any statutory enactment or law respecting standards of health, safety or housing. 2. (omitted as not relevant)

3. Good Behaviour - A landlord or tenant shall conduct himself in such a manner as not to interfere with the possession or occupancy of the tenant or of the landlord and the other tenants, respectively. [ 72 ]          Rules are to be provided to the Tenant prior to the execution of a lease.  As in the present case, they are often attached to the form of lease to be signed. Landlord’s Rules 9A (1) A copy of reasonable rules established by a landlord that apply to the residential premises shall be given to a tenant prior to executing a lease. (2) Rules may be changed or repealed upon four months notice to the tenant prior to the anniversary date in any year. (3) A rule is reasonable if (a) it is intended to (i) promote a fair distribution of services and facilities to the occupants of the residential premises, (ii) promote the safety, comfort or welfare of per sons working or residing in the residential premises, or (iii) protect the landlord’s property from abuse; (b) it is reasonably related to the purpose for which it is intended; (c) it applies to all tenants in a fair manner; and (d) it is clearly expressed so as to inform the tenant of what the tenant must or must not   do to comply with the rule. 1993 [ 73 ]          The Supreme Court of Canada in  [COMPANY]. v. Ontario (Transportation) ,  2013 SCC 13  at par.  19   described the requirements for private nuisance: The elements of a claim in private nuisance have often been expressed in terms of a two-part test of this nature: to support a claim in private nuisance the interference with the owner’s use or enjoyment of land must be both substantial and unreasonable. A substantial interference with property is one that is non-trivial. Where this threshold is met, the inquiry proceeds to the reasonableness analysis, which is concerned with whether the non-trivial interference was also unreasonable in all of the circumstances. Decision: [ 74 ]          I proceed now to consider the facts of this case in the context of nuisance as it relates to residential tenancies, applying the two-part test of Antrim Truck Centre, above . (a)  Was the interference “substantial”? [ 75 ]            Significant evidence was provided by both parties in this case, with [NAME] providing over one hundred pages in total, designed to demonstrate the damage which #309’s behaviour caused, and her requested remedies. [ 76 ]          A considerable portion of [NAME]’s claim relates to what she describes as the health impacts of her exposure to smoke, which she describes as stress. [ 77 ]          In support of this position, she provided a June 13 th , 2025 note from [NAME], which states: [NAME] is unable to continue living in her [NAME] apartment due to a significant negative health impact on her health. Second hand smoke from adjacent balconies is the source of her health decline. I recommend that the building be completely smoke free. [ 78 ]          There is attached to that note a page written by [NAME] titled “Immediate requests I made to management on June 12 by e-mail” , and describes her asking for cracks in the wall to be filled, and air spaces and plumbing connections to be sealed, given the tenant in #309 “a preliminary warning prior to a Form N5”, and closing with saying “[NAME] was too busy to meet with me meet with me. The property manager and operations manager feel they have more important things to do.” [ 79 ]          [NAME] has written “I agree with the above” on that page. [ 80 ]          [NAME] did not testify before me, but I conclude that as is appropriate for a doctor in their role as patient advocate, he based his note on what [NAME] told him. [ 81 ]          There is no information in his note which provides any insight as to why [NAME] needs to live in a smoke free building. [ 82 ]          As I will discuss below in relation to [NAME]’s letter, it may be that [NAME] should live in a smoke free building.  It does not follow that requiring or recommending that a building become smoke free falls under the ambit of physician treatment recommendations. [ 83 ]          The next medical is dated June 23rd, 2025 from [NAME]. He describes her health impacts as “headache, loss of appetite, nausea, outbreaks of skin, rashes on neck and scalp”, which he says are caused by exposure to second-hand smoke. [ 84 ]          He continues, “I am prescribing a smoke free living environment for her and respectfully request that you reinforce the non-smoking [NAME] in your non-smoking building, making your entire apartment building smoke free in order to fulfill my prescription.” [ 85 ]          He goes on to speak about second hand smoke causing asthma, COPD and “even lung cancer”. [ 86 ]          Again, [NAME] did not testify, and again, he quite rightly gets his information from his patient, who has told him that she lives in a nonsmoking building, which is, by the evidence, not the case. [ 87 ]          Again, a prescription from a physician cannot operate to alter the lease conditions at 60 [NAME].  It is an attempt to proscribe, not prescribe. [ 88 ]          The most that can be said is that it is clear that [NAME] believes that [NAME] should live in a non-smoking building.  He arguably also believes that all buildings should be non-smoking.  In the absence of his evidence, the health conditions that he attributes to second hand smoke are not immediately obvious as from that cause. [ 89 ]          The final medical is from a [NAME] referral dated July 26, 2025. The self diagnosis [NAME] gave to the program was “pain” and naproxen was prescribed. [ 90 ]          To quote [NAME], “I have self diagnosed myself as having sciatica on Friday, July 18 th , 2025, after “having a herniated disc on the previous Monday, which is now healed”. She says that she was having sleep issues with this as a result. [ 91 ]          This third note is the most remote regarding problems with smoking in the building.  If [NAME] had a herniated disc and was complaining about sciatica, that could equally be the explanation for the sleeplessness that she described.  I find that there is no evidence that smoking, or indeed stress, can cause sciatica. Loss of Income: [ 92 ]          [NAME] works as a Spiritual Coach, and I have no evidence on what that work entailed, other than her evidence that she works remotely at home. [ 93 ]          She argues that her income dropped from an average of $6,547.00 month to an average of $2,029.00 in the months of May to October of 2025.  Overall, she is requesting $27,100.00. [ 94 ]          I find that there is insufficient evidence to support a lost income claim.  As a self-employed person, the evidence is that [NAME] made $8,121.40 in January of 2025, $1,962.76 in February of 2025, and $9,555.51 in March of 2025.  She made no income during her move to [NAME] in April of 2025, and describes the following months as “impacted”, showing income of between $363.44 (in May) to $3,623.85 in July. [ 95 ]          [NAME] says that her income was affected by her need to prepare for this case.  Her documentation at the hearing included a 132-page book of evidence, with extremely detailed arguments on what she describes as the “pillars” of her case (misrepresentation, [NAME] and harms). [ 96 ]          There is no question that [NAME] must have been devoting a great deal of time and energy to preparing for this proceeding.  However, I have no evidence to support what work she turned down, could have had, or delayed during that time period.  The evidence from the beginning of the year, January to March, shows only that her income could vary widely from month to month. [ 97 ]          While evidence regarding specific damages is not shown by the evidence, I find that at least in the period between May and June of 2025, which [NAME] was reporting and telling the Landlord of her issues with 309, the nuisance in that time period, was “substantial”.   After that point, I have no evidence to confirm that it continued to be so. (b) Was the interference unreasonable in all the circumstances? [ 98 ]          Even though there is not evidence to support “substantial interference” after June of 2025, I will go on to consider the issue of reasonableness. [ 99 ]          I have no difficulty in finding that smoking in apartments can constitute a nuisance.  I also find that the proper approach in such circumstances is to address the behaviour of the tenant that is causing the issue. [ 100 ]     [NAME] says that the Landlord made every effort to address the smoking issue raised with [NAME]’s neighbour, and that they were hampered by [NAME] not advising them in real time of smoking incidents so that they could follow up, especially in the fall of 2025. [ 101 ]     [NAME] says that the building is not a non-smoking building but is in the process of becoming non-smoking. The Landlord sees this dispute as arising between two tenants, the tenant in apartment #309, and [NAME] in apartment #411. [ 102 ]     I agree.  Despite a few references to unit 311, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that this was not a dispute between these two tenants. [ 103 ]     What are the responsibilities of the Landlord under the RTA in such a dispute?  It must be remembered that #309 had been permitted to smoke on his balcony for thirteen years and had a smoking lease. [ 104 ]     At first blush, promissory estoppel (a legal concept that prohibits a party from reneging from a promise when the other side has relied upon it to their detriment), would protect his right to continue to smoke. [ 105 ]     It is of course possible for the Landlord under the RTA to resile from the original promise made with reasonable notice but notice in this case would not be an overnight change. [ 106 ]     [NAME]’s primary complaint is that it has taken the Landlord too long to deal with her complaint.  However, the protection of estoppel is reflected in the RTA.  A Landlord cannot immediately march someone out of the building because they are smoking and another tenant or tenants complains. [ 107 ]     It is a process.  The Landlord certainly had complaints in May and June of 2025, and the evidence shows that chronology of what the Landlord did. [ 108 ]     I find that the Landlord acted reasonably.  [NAME] spoke to #309.   The last complaint prior to the referral to residential tenancies appears to be around the time of the meeting with Ms. [NAME]. [ 109 ]     [NAME] maintained a record which she refers to as a “Smoke Log” in May and June of 2025, she did not provide further complaints to the Landlord.  She ceased the log on July 29, 2025 with a final note (which from context must have been added later) saying “I needed to bring my full attention to healing, and the patterns of smoking were already documented.” [ 110 ]     Documented, but apparently not shared with the Landlord.  It is also clear that after July of 2025, [NAME] stopped telling the Landlord anything about smoking incidents, except as it arose in the context of the residential tenancies process, and in fact refused to appear as a witness at the hearing with respect to the #309 in the fall of 2025, because as referenced above, her position was that this issue was the Landlord’s problem. [ 111 ]     However, if there is a problem, #309 is the problem, and residential tenancies and this Court require evidence and witnesses who can prove the problem exists.  Under the RTA, Landlords are not expected to be clairvoyant.  Response is complaint based. [ 112 ]     The need for complaint is necessary to establish that there is a nuisance.  [NAME] has attempted to analogise this case with the caselaw regarding the Landlord’s duty to effect repairs (and in fairness to her, I believe she is referring to those cases to support her request for the changes to the building she argued should be required), but repairs are not the same as good behaviour complaints.  A broken window ( [COMPANY]. v Lindstrom , 1979 NSCA (CanLii) or a broken sink and mold growth ( [NAME] v [COMPANY]., 2024 NSSM 29 (CanLii) require immediate repair – smoking requires assessment to determine if it has reached the nuisance stage. [ 113 ]     There is no evidence that there was ever a previous complaint about #309, and he had lived there since for 13 years. He, not surprisingly, reacted badly to [NAME]’s tactics and attempts to get him to stop smoking. [ 114 ]     The response of the Landlord was measured in their efforts to have #309 stop smoking on his balcony. [ 115 ]     There was in May of 2025 the beginning of a complaint with respect to this particular tenant, but as indicated, the response from residential tenancies and this Court, especially since he has smoked for thirteen years in this tenancy, would be to explore what had been done to attempt to give this tenant an opportunity to demonstrate that he can manage his smoking so that he would not be evicted. [ 116 ]     Put bluntly, it takes months and months to evict a tenant, and it should be the last resort, not the first.  The tenant in #309 had become combative with [NAME] because she took the fight to him directly.   Her tactics in taking his picture and personally watching him without reporting were unwise, told the Landlord nothing about a continuing problem in real time, and solved nothing. [ 117 ]     It is the challenge of balancing of interests between these tenants.  [NAME] is very unhappy with smoking in the building and wants it to stop, but I find that her refusal to advise the Landlord of issues contributed to the length of time this issue went on.  Any interference with her tenancy that resulted was not unreasonable in the circumstances. Conclusion: [ 118 ]      The Landlord achieved a resolution of the dispute between the parties, with a mediated agreement in the fall of 2025 and the initiation of a non- smoking lease for the tenant in #309 in February of 2026.  In dealing with this nuisance, this was a reasonable result. [ 119 ]     I therefore find that the Appellant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a breach of the RTA by the Landlord. The appeal is hereby dismissed. [NAME], KC, Chief Adjudicator Small Claims Court