McGenn v. Dunn, 2020 NSSM 5

SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: McGenn v. Dunn , 2020 NSSM 5 Date: 2020-01-06 Docket: SCCH 494097 Registry: Halifax Between: R.G. Duncan McGenn Claimant - and - Jason Dunn and Chelsea Smith Defendants Decision and Order Adjudicator : Eric K.

Slone Heard : in Halifax, Nova Scotia on January 2, 2020 Appearances : For the Claimant, self-represented For the Defendant, Chelsea Smith, self-represented (The Defendant Jason Dunn not attending) BY THE COURT: [ 1 ] The Claimant brought this claim against the two named Defendants, jointly, claiming for arrears of rent and damages arising out of a commercial lease for a garage in Eastern Passage. [ 2 ] At the outset of the trial, it was learned that the Defendant Jason Dunn was hospitalized, would remain so for at least a little while longer, and accordingly could not be in attendance for the trial.

I indicated to the Claimant that I would be inclined to adjourn the trial until Mr. Dunn was healthy enough to attend. The Claimant indicated that rather than adjourn, he would proceed against the other Defendant only. As such, I allowed the Claimant to discontinue the claim against Jason Dunn, and the final order will reflect that. [ 3 ] The brief history is this. The parties used to be friends, and may still be so to an extent, though relations are complicated because of this claim. The Claimant has a detached garage on his home property. Jason Dunn had a plan to start a business painting cars.

The Defendant Chelsea Smith was Jason Dunn’s common law spouse, though they have since separated. [ 4 ] The Claimant drew up a one-page commercial lease (“the lease”) which read: May 1, 2016 Commercial Rental Agreement between Duncan McGenn (leasor) and Jason Dunn (leasee) 1664 Shore Rd., Eastern Passage Tenancy for the 3 bay garage at 1664 Shore Rd. in Eastern Passage is month to month at $500 per month due on . 30 days written notice is required to terminate this agreement. A $250.00 deposit\security deposit will be held for term of the agreement. Proof of insurance is required for the garage.

Sublet or sublease is not allowed. Outdoor parking only allowed for a maximum of 3 vehicles. Leasee is required to transfer power into his name, Water supply to be included. [ 5 ] The lease was signed by the Claimant and Jason Dunn. [ 6 ] Chelsea Smith’s involvement in the negotiation of the lease and the creation of the document was minimal. She came along when Mr. Dunn looked at the place. She was not asked to sign the lease. She was not part of the car painting business. Three times in 2017 she e-transferred a $500.00 rent payment to the Claimant, which she explained was at Mr.

Dunn’s request because he was short of funds. [ 7 ] She was also the intended beneficiary of a (derelict) vehicle that Mr. Dunn had bought for her, parked in the garage, and which he planned to repair for her eventual use. This car remains in the garage. Ms. Smith disavows any ownership interest in it. [ 8 ] Ms. Smith also admits that Mr. Dunn occasionally did minor work on her (other) vehicle in the driveway at the garage. The claim [ 9 ] Rent is in arrears to the tune of $2,750.00 (and counting).

The Claimant also believes there will be a significant cost to empty the garage of all its contents (including two cars) and to clean it. He prepared an estimate of $5,550.65 through his own company Easy Care Carpet Cleaners Ltd., for disposal of the contents including used motor oil and paint cans. [ 10 ] The Claimant candidly admits that what he really wants is to get his garage back, though he has not formally sought to terminate the lease, as he is entitled to do. Chelsea Smith [ 11 ] The Claimant appears to believe that Ms. Smith is responsible for Mr.

Dunn’s contractual dealings, by virtue of the fact that they were common law spouses. As a legal proposition, that is entirely incorrect. It is not the case for married couples, and even less so for unmarried ones. People are responsible for the contracts they enter into, and except in specific cases where they have authority to bind someone else to their contracts, their spouses are not automatically bound to these obligations. [ 12 ] On the specific facts here, I find that Ms. Smith’s involvement never rose to the level where she could be considered a party to this contract.

The Claimant could have, but did not, include Ms. Smith in the lease. Her other minimal involvement - such as by making three rent payments - is entirely consistent with her explanation that she was helping out her spouse by lending him money. [ 13 ] The fact that he was working on a car for her does not draw her into the lease.

[ 14 ] In the result, I cannot find any credible basis to hold Ms. Smith responsible for arrears of rent or damages under the lease, and the claim against her must be dismissed. [ 15 ] Provisionally, I accept the Claimant’s evidence of the rent arrears. [ 16 ] I make no specific findings about the additional damages. The quote provided by the Claimant is entirely self-serving and speculative.

I do not believe that the Claimant can reasonably know what costs he will incur emptying and cleaning the garage until he gets a close look at it, once he regains possession. [ 17 ] It is not for the court to advise the Claimant on what remedies he may have against Mr. Dunn. I believe he knows what he has to do. Should a claim be served again on Mr. Dunn, this court will approach the matter freshly on the merits as they exist at the time.

ORDER [ 18 ] It is accordingly ordered that the claim against Jason Dunn is discontinued, without prejudice to any future steps that the Claimant may take. [ 19 ] It is also ordered that the claim against the Defendant Chelsea Smith is dismissed. Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator