Court ruling prevents Dartmouth landlords from moving family out to move daughter in

Property owners in Dartmouth, N.S., can’t move a family out of the duplex it has rented for 13 years in order to move their daughter in.

A small claims court adjudicator said it would be inappropriate to disrupt the living arrangements for the family of six. 

In his decision last month, Darrel Pink noted factors including how long the tenants have lived there and the shortage of housing alternatives.

A lawyer who represents tenants said the decision sets a precedent and sends a strong message to people in similar situations.

“It sends a message that your tenure is important, and that we need to take the housing crisis into account when making these kinds of decisions,” said Tammy Wohler of Nova Scotia Legal Aid.

The renters, Kristen Berglund and Jyelee Simmonds, have four children.

Two teenage boys share one room. A three-year-old girl and a recently adopted baby girl will share another room.

Berglund, who was looking for other rental units but couldn’t find any, said she was worried about being homeless if the family had to leave right away.

“Terminating a tenancy when a family may have no safe place to move is something this Court will try to avoid,” the decision said.

‘Respect and courtesy’

The tenants represented themselves at a hearing against property owners Carlo and Loretta Simmons, who earlier had an application to take possession of the rental unit dismissed by the director of residential tenancies.

But in contrast to many rental disputes, the adjudicator characterized this one as being marked with “respect and courtesy.”

He described the rent of $900 a month for the duplex in Woodlawn as “extremely reasonable,” noting the couple believes in making housing affordable, and “have done so at significant personal expense.”

It was always the plan for the Simmons to make the property available for their daughter, a 27-year-old nurse, so their intentions were also in good faith, the decision said.

What they expected was for their daughter, who is engaged, to take over the unit and move in with her partner.

A second daughter living in P.E.I. visits regularly and also intends to move in.

The owners should have the option to use the property as they see fit and their intention to transfer it to their daughters “should not be thwarted” unless there is a strong public interest, the adjudicator wrote. 

However, he decided that maintaining things as they are is the most appropriate action, pointing to a number of factors.

Roots, connections

Six people in a three-bedroom unit makes greater use of the space than a couple and a regular visitor, the decision said.

The decision also explained how accommodations are more than a place to live, recognizing the roots and connections to the community.

“Childcare that is relatively close and local schools is significant,” he acknowledged, adding the importance of the proximity to friends and where they play sports.

Being such long-term tenants also weighed in their favour.

“They have security of tenancy,” the decision states. “Over 13 years they have had a single home. It is the only home their three-and-a-half-year-old daughter has known.”

Wohler doesn’t know either party but plans to reference it when arguing similar cases. 

“It’s not enough for someone to show that there’s a good-faith intention and that they want the unit for a family member,” she said. “It really considers individual factors and it shows that these cases need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.” 

Kristen Berglund said she is relieved with the decision but did not think it was in the family’s interests to do interviews about it.

Carlo Simmons said he was disappointed and considering his options but does not plan to increase the rent.