Langen v. Universal Realty Group, 2022 NSSM 42

SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Langen v. Universal Realty Group , 2022 NSSM 42 ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES Date: 202206 23 Docket: SCCH 515016 Registry: Halifax Between: Bern Langen Appellant (tenant -and- Universal Realty Group Respondent (landlord) REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER Adjudicator : Eric K.

Slone Heard : June 20, 2022 via zoom in Halifax, Nova Scotia Appearances : For the Appellant, Tammy Wohler, Nova Scotia Legal Aid For the Respondent, Tammy Holland and Matt Oatway BY THE COURT : [ 1 ] This is an appeal by the tenant from a decision of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated May 20, 2022 which granted the landlord vacant possession of unit 199 at 396 Princess Margaret Drive in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia as of May 31, 2022.

[ 2 ] This appeal was heard via zoom on June 20, 2022. [ 3 ] The Residential Tenancies Officer in her decision cited a number of different issues as grounds for termination: a. Noise complaints; b. Damage caused to another unit by leaks from fish tanks in the unit; c. Excessive “police presence,” namely the fact that the police attended the unit on a number of occasions which has had an unsettling effect on other tenants. [ 4 ] There is no denying that there have been an abnormal number of significant problems during this tenancy.

Many of those problems stem from the tenant’s tempestuous relationship with his former girlfriend, “M,” from whom he finally separated in March 2022, though not all her contents were removed until May. [ 5 ] The tenancy began on October 1, 2019. Not long after, there were some noise complaints as a result of loud music being played by the tenant and M. After the complaints were brought to his attention, the loud music stopped and has not been shown to be a problem ever since. [ 6 ] The Residential Tenancies Officer cited these complaints as part of her reason for ending the tenancy.

With respect, I disagree with that finding. I believe those incidents from 2019 are too far in the past to be resurrected as grounds for ending a lease in 2022. [ 7 ] M keeps fish as a hobby, and had several tanks, including a large salt-water tank, in the apartment. In July 2020 the table holding that tank gave way and the tank crashed to the floor, spilling a large quantity of water. As expected, the water seeped into the floor and caused a minor flood in the apartment below.

This in turn caused damage mostly to the ceiling below. [ 8 ] The landlord repaired the damage and for reasons not fully explained, did not make a claim against the tenant’s tenant insurance which would have almost certainly responded to the claim. [ 9 ] In March 2022 there was another minor leak which also caused some damage to the unit below, though on a much smaller scale. [ 10 ] The landlord claims that it had instructed the tenant back in 2020 to stop having fish tanks, but there is no documentary evidence of this. [ 11 ] The second incident happened while the tenant was in the process of splitting up with M, and she soon thereafter took the fish away and drained the tanks.

The tenant is currently trying to sell the tanks, and has no intention of filling them with water as he does not keep fish as a hobby. [ 12 ] The landlord insisted that he was in breach of his obligations by still having the empty tanks in the apartment, but this is an absurd position to take. [ 13 ] I do not believe these incidents with the fish tanks constitute grounds for ending the tenancy, and I disagree with the Residential Tenancies Officer on this point, as well.

[ 14 ] The more serious concern, in my opinion, is the number of times that the police have had to attend at the apartment. But these incidents are explainable and do not necessarily portend any future trouble. [ 15 ] In late 2019 the tenant and M allowed another women, “C,” to live with them as a way of helping with the rent. C had a relationship with a man, “D,” who was incarcerated. In the early days of the pandemic in April 2020, the Authorities were under a great deal of pressure to send inmates home on house arrest, to avoid the spread of Covid in jails and prisons.

D apparently had nowhere to go, so through his lawyer he pressured the tenant to allow D to move into the premises with C, where he would remain under conditions. The tenant testified that he did not know D and did not really want a fourth person living in the unit, but he relented. This led to complaints by other tenants as it appears that D was noisy and disruptive and got into loud arguments with C. The police were called on at least one occasion. Eventually D moved out.

Not long after the landlord served a notice on C to move out, which she did. [ 16 ] It does not appear that much happened of any consequence (other than the tank incident in July 2020) until late 2021 when the tenant and M started having loud fights as their relationship was in the process of disintegrating. The tenant - who is a recovering alcoholic - relapsed briefly. M was engaging in the use of illicit drugs. [ 17 ] The tenant almost left the tenancy voluntarily in December 2021. He served a notice to that effect, though it was not in the proper form.

A few days later he served notice that he did not want to leave, and brought an application to Residential Tenancies to confirm that his tenancy was still valid. The landlord counterclaimed in that proceeding, which led to the proceeding under appeal. [ 18 ] The tenant himself called the police on March 28, 2022 for assistance in removing M from the premises. She moved out and has only been back on a couple of occasions to collect her fish and all of her belongings.

At the tenant’s insistence, the police were asked to supervise these visits so that nothing loud or violent would occur. [ 19 ] According to the landlord, and the Residential Tenancies Officer, the presence of the police on so many occasions is also grounds for terminating the lease. The landlord says that other tenants have expressed concern about their safety and have threatened to leave the building. [ 20 ] On this point, I am more sympathetic to the landlord’s position, but still on balance I do not believe it justifies termination of the lease.

The involvement of the police on all of the recent occasions was not to respond to illegal or disruptive behaviour. It was to prevent illegal or disruptive incidents. The police serve a valuable function in this respect.

I can appreciate that other tenants in the building might draw certain conclusions when they see the police entering their building on multiple occasions, but that ought not to reflect on the tenant. [ 21 ] In light of the apparent volatility of the tenant’s relationship with M, calling the police to assist was the responsible thing to do. [ 22 ] As for the landlord’s concern about the loss of other tenants, the first point to make is that they did not provide any credible, firsthand evidence that anyone has actually made a serous threat. The only “evidence” was vague hearsay, and of no probative value.

I also take note of the fact that there is a severe shortage of affordable housing in Metro Halifax and if some people are actually motivated to leave this building, I have no doubt that the units will be filled immediately. But I am quite dubious that anyone will actually leave if the tenant is allowed to stay. [ 23 ] The tenant’s father, Roger Langen, is a co-tenant on the lease and is a stabilizing influence on the tenant. This gives me comfort that the tenant will avoid the poor choices that created problems in the past.

Conclusions [ 24 ] In short, any of the concerns or complaints dating from 2019 and 2020 are stale and cannot be resurrected as grounds for terminating the lease in 2022. The events that have occurred in late 2021 or 2022 do not reach a level of seriousness which would cause me to find that the tenant has breached his lease obligations.

[ 25 ] The breakup of a domestic relationship can be messy, and it is regrettable that this may have spilled over into the lives of other tenants. But all in all it appears to have been handled without any major incidents. [ 26 ] To the extent, if any, that the tenant’s problems with alcoholism may have created or contributed to these issues, it appears that the tenant is receiving ongoing treatment and support.

Alcoholism is a recognized disability that should invite accommodation from landlords and the legal system, not punishment. [ 27 ] The leaky fish tank in 2022 was purely an accident that cannot be traced to anything that the tenant himself did, or did not do, and is highly unlikely to be repeated as the tenant has no intention of filling any tanks with water.

ORDER [ 28 ] In the result, the Order of the Director of Residential Tenancies dated May 20, 2022 which granted the landlord vacant possession of unit 199 at 396 Princess Margaret Drive in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia as of May 31, 2022, is hereby set aside and in its place an order is made dismissing the landlord’s application. Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator