Tenant's Appeal Allowed with Conditions in Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2026 NSSM 2 Date: 20260223 Claim: No. 549344 Registry: Halifax Between: [NAME] Appellant and [NAME] Respondent

DECISION Adjudicator: [NAME], KC, Adjudicator Heard: February 19, 2026 by [NAME] Counsel: [redacted] [NAME], for respondent By the Court: [ 1 ]              When does a poor choice of the live-in houseguests of a tenant, or a failure to control their behaviour in an apartment building, justify the eviction of the host tenant? That is the question in this appeal. [ 2 ]              The appellant is a tenant of unit (218) in a four-story apartment building at [ADDRESS], Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. She has been a tenant for roughly 11 years. She is the only tenant under lease in the unit. She is not always the only occupant. On December 1, 2025 a Residential Tenancy officer issued an order terminating her lease and requiring vacant possession for December 11, 2025. She appeals from that order. [ 3 ]              Based on the evidence before me I have decided to allow the appeal subject to conditions. The hearing [ 4 ]              The hearing took place on February 19, 2026 on [NAME]. [ 5 ]              On behalf of the respondent landlord/property manager I heard the testimony of [NAME], the owner’s Property Manager; [NAME], Building Manager, who looks after three buildings, including the one at 65 Primrose; and [NAME], who looks after the building maintenance. The respondent also entered into evidence a bundle of documents, and a thumb drive of security camera videos, covering a good part of the history behind the landlord’s decision to seek termination of [NAME]’s lease. [ 6 ]              On behalf of the appellant I heard the testimony of [NAME]. Background [ 7 ]              Much of the landlord’s concern about [NAME]’s tenancy stems from her apparently problematic relationship with Mr [NAME], in her words “a friend from years ago,” who also lived at 65 Primrose, albeit in a different unit (112), and another acquaintance,  [NAME], an alleged drug dealer who at one point appears to have squatted in [NAME]’s unit after [NAME] was evicted. [NAME] on the evidence is a close associate of [NAME]. They are frequently seen together and leaving or entering the building. [NAME] also has throughout the period in question been an owner of an aggressive pit bull dog. The dog was often unleashed, and was permitted by [NAME] to urinate and defecate in the hallways and stairwells of the building, as well as in the outside balcony of unit 218. [ 8 ]              In March 2019 the property manager notified all tenants that the smoking or cultivation of cannabis on the property was prohibited. In August 2019 it notified [NAME] that there had been complaints about she and/or her guests smoking cannabis in her unit and on the balcony. She was told to stop. [ 9 ]              On August 14, 2019 the landlord received the following complaint from another tenant: “At 2:35 am I was woken by screaming and hollering and banging on the walls. Unit 218 Christine Thomson and Unit 112 [NAME] were both drunk and unit 218 – Christine – called the Police (herself). 3 cops showed up, I met them in the lobby and told them what I heard and saw, Christine was on the floor with food and broken dishes all around her and unit 112 [NAME] told me to go back to bed and mind my business.” [ 10 ]          On the same day the landlord sent [NAME] a noise warning, saying that it was her responsibility to keep the level of noise and behaviour in her unit under control. [ 11 ]          On October 22, 2019 the property manager issued a second notice regarding complaints of excessively loud music coming from the unit. [ 12 ]          In October 2023 [NAME] somehow locked herself out of Unit 218. She told [NAME] that she had got [NAME], an friend of hers who also lived at 65 Primrose, though on a different floor, to kick in her door, breaking the lock, so that she could gain entry to her unit. [ 13 ]          In March 2025 the property manager issued a notice to [NAME] to quit his unit (112) as of April 7, 2025 on the grounds that he posed a risk to the safety or security of the landlord and tenants of the building. [ 14 ]          The then owner applied to Residential Tenancies for an order terminating [NAME]’s lease and occupancy of Unit 112. A hearing was set for May 27, 2025. [NAME], through his then counsel at the time, reached a settlement with the landlord, which then resulted in a consent order terminating his lease effective June 30, 2025. [ 15 ]          [NAME] did not vacate Unit 112 on June 30 th , resulting in a July 29, 2025 order to the sheriff to deliver possession of the unit. [NAME] testified that she had allowed [NAME] to stay with her in her unit following his eviction. [ 16 ]          In early August 2025 the property manager was advised that [NAME] was seen entering Unit 218 every night, and that he had his own key to the unit. [ 17 ]          On August 7, 2025 the property manager advised [NAME] that it was aware that [NAME] had been staying in her unit, despite the fact that he was not permitted to return to or reside at [ADDRESS]. It advised her that his presence posed a threat to the security and safety of both the landlord and other tenants. She asked [NAME] to stop permitting [NAME] to visit or stay at her unit or anywhere on the property. [ 18 ]          [NAME] continued to visit or occupy [NAME]’s unit. On August 11, 2025 the property manager notified [NAME] that it was terminating her lease effective September 30, 2025 because of her failure to refuse [NAME] access to her unit or to the property. [ 19 ]          [NAME] did not vacate her unit. On September 17, 2025 the property manager made an application to the Residential Tenancies for an order terminating her lease and for vacant possession. [ 20 ]          On November 6, 2025 [NAME] and [NAME] visited unit 218 to deliver the Residential Tenancies paperwork and evidence. The door was opened by [NAME]. His dog, a pit bull breed, leapt out and knocked [NAME] backwards, causing her to twist and injure her back. [ 21 ]          On November 12, 2025 [NAME] received a complaint from another tenant. The tenant reported that there had been an altercation between [NAME] and one “[NAME]”, the girlfriend of the occupant of Unit 412. The tenant said that “218 needs a noise complaint letter – damn near 12 and she was losing it. I did call the police.” [ 22 ]          The hearing took place November 27, 2025. [NAME] did not appear. The Residential Tenancies officer, after hearing the evidence of [NAME] and [NAME], issued an order on December 1, 2025 terminating the lease and ordering vacant possession effective December 11, 2025. [ 23 ]          On or about December 3, 2025 [NAME] retained counsel, who filed an appeal on her behalf on or about December 5, 2025. [ 24 ]          On December 23, 2025 the landlord received another complaint of dog feces in the hallway. [ 25 ]          On January 13, 2026 a fire extinguisher inspector from [NAME] was checking the extinguisher next to Unit 218. The door to the unit opened, the dog owned by [NAME] ran out and bit the inspector’s steel-toed boot. There was no injury because of the steel toe. [ 26 ]          On January 26, 2026 [NAME] noticed the dog on the outside balcony for Unit 218. She had earlier received photographs taken the day before, showing two areas of dog feces on the balcony to unit 218. [ 27 ]          On February 3, 2026 another tenant submitted the following complaint: I am writing concerning an individual that doesn’t reside in the building and brings a large dog (looks like a Pitbull breed) with him. This individual has allowed their dog to pee and poop in the hallways of the 2md floor, especially at the doorway of some of the units, and traces of it also on the stairwell down to leading outside. This individual has been spotted going into unit 218 on numerous occasions. Not only is it a hazard for potential falls, it is also embarrassing to have company arrive in this state. [ 28 ]          [NAME] testified that about two weeks ago he had seen the dog on the balcony to unit 218 barking. [ 29 ]          [NAME] also testified that he had seen [NAME] going into Unit 218 “last week”---that is, the week of February 9 th . He had also seen [NAME] entering the unit last week. [NAME]’s testimony [ 30 ]          [NAME]’s testified that [NAME] was “a friend of mine from years ago.” After his eviction he stayed in her apartment. She said that he “would not leave my apartment” but admitted that he kept coming back. She also admitted that she had provided him with a key so that she did not have to go down to the lobby to let him in. She said that she suffered from arthritis and fibro myalgia and so had difficulty getting to the lobby door to let him in. [ 31 ]          She said that she did not call the police to remove [NAME] because she “cared about him and because he kept telling me he would leave but he never did.” She testified that the last time [NAME] stayed with her was “a couple of months ago,” then clarified that it was “just after Christmas.” [ 32 ]          When asked by counsel in direct why she had not taken steps to have him removed she said she was afraid of him, that he “beat me when I tried to get him out.” She said she told him that she didn’t want the dog staying with them, and that he said he wouldn’t but still did. She added that she did not have a phone, and that once she got one she called the police and they removed him. When asked when she called the police, she said “about two weeks ago.” She said that neither she nor the police had laid any charges against [NAME]---that she just wanted him and his dog out of the unit. She added that she was prepared to sign an agreement under the Protection of Property Act , RSNS 1989, c.363 that would exclude [NAME] from her unit, though she acknowledged that nothing yet had been done in that regard. [ 33 ]          She was asked in direct why it had taken so long to remove them She said that “they just would not leave, I kept telling them not to come back but they had nowhere to go, they kept coming back, that is why we fought all the time.” [ 34 ]          During cross examination [NAME] insisted that she did not want [NAME] to be in her unit. When asked whether she had changed the lock to her unit she said ‘no.’ When asked whether she had asked the landlord to change the lock, she said she hadn’t because she “wanted to see what happened with this appeal.” [ 35 ]          When asked what she would do if [NAME] came to her unit she answered rhetorically “what am I supposed to do, call the police?” but then went on to say that she would call the police because that is how she “got rid of him a few weeks ago.” She testified that she had not contacted any domestic abuse organizations. She said she had not told the landlord about her allegations of abuse against either [NAME] or [NAME], saying that she had only notified the police. Submissions on behalf of the landlord [ 36 ]          [NAME] submitted that the problems associated with [NAME] and her relationship with [NAME] and [NAME], and her allowing them to stay in her unit, had been going on for a least a year. She noted that [NAME] had never asked for her locks to be changed. [NAME] kept coming back, and there appeared to be nothing to stop [NAME] from coming back either. She called [NAME]’s sincerity into question, noting that she had not called the police until two weeks before the appeal hearing. She pointed the evidence of [NAME] and [NAME]’s continued use and occupancy of unit 218 and the safety and health concerns that use and occupancy created. She said the landlord was prepared to provide her with time to find a new apartment, but that she had to go. Submissions on behalf of [NAME] [ 37 ]          Counsel submitted that [NAME] was a vulnerable woman who used a walker. Many of the noise complaints against her were seriously dated. She lived by herself, and had been taken advantage of by [NAME] and [NAME]. They had “preyed on her soft spot for [NAME], or on her fear.” She suffered from a form of domestic abuse. [NAME] had, by [NAME]’s testimony, “beat her.” Once she had a phone she did call the police for assistance in excluding them from her unit. Analysis and decision [ 38 ]          It seems clear that many of the problems associated with [NAME]’s occupancy of Unit 218 had more to do with the conduct or actions of [NAME] and [NAME] than with her specifically. However, one may become known by the company one keeps. And on this point I take note of the following findings. [ 39 ]          First, [NAME] was a former tenant who was an old friend of [NAME]. He was evicted in the spring of 2025 because of health and safety issues associated with his conduct. He eventually agreed to the eviction, which in ordinary course would have ended his use and occupancy of the building at 65 Primrose to the benefit of both the landlord and the other tenants. But that use and occupancy did not end when it was supposed to because on the evidence (and [NAME]’s own admission) he moved in with her. By granting him permission to occupy her unit [NAME] frustrated the entire point of [NAME]’s eviction. I am satisfied on the evidence and find as fact that [NAME] knew not only that [NAME] had been evicted, but why, and yet offered him the right to live with her in her unit. [ 40 ]          Second, I was not persuaded on the evidence that [NAME] allowed [NAME] to use and occupy her unit because she lived in constant fear of him. What physical force there was appears on [NAME]’s evidence to have been more a product of a sometimes tempestuous relationship than any real fear. She did testify that he may have hit her once or twice in the course of an argument, but she did not say how hard or how forceful or how frequent those blows were. Her evidence has to be balanced against her other testimony that he was an old friend, and that she cared for him. There was also her evidence that she gave him a key, not because she was afraid of him, but because, she said, that she had difficulty getting to the front door. That evidence does not explain why, if she was afraid of him, she gave him the key or would have wanted him to enter in the first place. There is too the fact that over the period from last July to now she has made no effort to seek the help of domestic abuse organizations. She has made no effort to have the lock to her door changed. She has not told the landlord she is afraid of him. She has not asked the landlord to change the lock, making any such request conditional on what happened in this appeal. And while she has offered to make an agreement under the Protection of Property Act she has taken no such steps---notwithstanding that she has had counsel since at least December 5, 2025. One would have thought that if she seriously wanted [NAME] and [NAME] to be gone she would have taken such steps by now. She testified that she called the police to have him removed only “a few weeks ago,”  and even here evidence as to when and how long and under what terms or conditions was absent. [ 41 ]          None of this supports the suggestion that she lived in fear of [NAME]. It is more consistent with her other evidence, and I so find, that he was an old friend from long ago that she was trying to help because he had nowhere to go. She did this notwithstanding that she knew that the landlord wanted him gone, and that [NAME] had agreed to go. [ 42 ]          Third, and notwithstanding any sympathy one may have for [NAME]’s situation, there are also the other tenants in the building to be considered. [NAME] was supposed to be gone because of the threat his occupancy posed to their health and safety. His close associate and frequent companion, [NAME], has an aggressive and threatening dog which he makes no effort to control. It urinates and defecates in the hallways and stairwells. It defecates on unit 218’s balcony. There was no apparent effort by anyone in the unit to clean it up. The dog threatens and lunges at the landlord’s employees and contractors. [NAME] has allowed [NAME] and [NAME] to occupy her unit for a long time now. And I have found on her own account that she has made at best only half-hearted efforts to end that occupancy. She is as a result, and in effect, contributing indirectly to what she could not do directly---threaten or seriously interfere with the other tenants’ use and enjoyment of their units and the building in general. [ 43 ]          Section 10(7B) of the Residential Tenancies Act permits a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant where the tenant breaches Statutory Conditions 3 or 4 of s.9(1), which are as follows:

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.

4. Obligation of the Tenant - The tenant is responsible for the ordinary  cleanliness of the interior of the premises and for the repair of damage caused by wilful or negligent act of the tenant or of any person whom the tenant permits on the premises . [emphasis added] [ 44 ]          I am satisfied that [NAME] is in breach of both statutory conditions. Her conduct of permitting and facilitating the access of [NAME] and [NAME] to her unit and the building has interfered with the possession and occupancy of the building by the landlord as well as other tenants. She is also indirectly if not directly responsible for the filth associated with the dog’s use of the building or her unit for its toilet needs. [ 45 ]          For these reasons I would in ordinary circumstances be satisfied that the appeal should be dismissed and that [NAME]’s lease should be terminated. However, I note three mitigating factors in favour of withholding any such order. First, there is her long tenure, one in excess of ten years, and one that until relatively recently appears to have been reasonably unexceptional. Second, and as I have already noted, there is the fact that much of the problem relates to the conduct of [NAME] and [NAME] rather than to [NAME] herself. Finally, there is the fact that since December 2025 if not somewhat before [NAME] has made some---albeit rather half-hearted---efforts to bar the two from her unit. [ 46 ]          I accordingly allow the appeal in part and make the following order in place of the December 1, 2025 order of the Residential Tenancy officer: 1.                [NAME] shall within 10 days of this order replace the lock to her unit 218, and shall not provide a copy of the key to anyone other than the landlord;

2.                In the event the landlord changes the locking system to the front or other outside doors of the building at [ADDRESS], Dartmouth, [NAME] shall not provide a copy of any resulting key or access code to anyone and, in particular, to [NAME] or [NAME] or to any of their known associates; 3.                [NAME] shall not again breach the statutory conditions of her lease and, in particular, shall not permit, condone or authorize any access or occupancy of any kind, whether for a visit or for overnight, to her unit 218 to either or both [NAME] or [NAME];

4.                In the event [NAME] breaches or fails to comply with any or all of the above conditions the landlord is at liberty to make an immediate application for an order terminating her lease and obtaining vacant possession of the premises known as unit 218 at [ADDRESS], Dartmouth. [NAME], KC, Small Claims Court Adjudicator