Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant’s challenge focused on alleged procedural unfairness, discrimination, and failure to accommodate medical needs in the eviction process.

• Motions to recuse the presiding judge and remove respondent’s counsel were dismissed for lack of evidence supporting bias or conflict of interest.

• The adjudicator found the appellant’s conduct breached the statutory condition of good behaviour under the Residential Tenancies Act, resulting in an order for vacant possession.

• Allegations against the landlord, including use of harmful chemicals and discrimination, were found unsupported by the evidence.

• The appeal was conducted de novo, with the adjudicator providing significant procedural accommodations to the appellant.

• No error of law, jurisdictional error, or breach of natural justice was established; the appeal was dismissed and the order for vacant possession confirmed.

Facts of the case

Gaidheal McIntyre, a self-represented appellant and tenant at unit 3-108 Albro Lake Road, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, appealed the Small Claims Court judgment dated June 23, 2025, which upheld an order for vacant possession of the premises in favour of 24 Melrose Holdings Inc., the landlord and owner. The initial order from the Director of Residential Tenancies, dated September 11, 2024, was based on a finding that McIntyre had breached the statutory condition of good behaviour under the Residential Tenancies Act, RSNS 1989, c. 401. McIntyre’s appeal to the Small Claims Court was extensive, and the hearing spanned 14 Thursday evening sessions over five months, totaling more than thirty hours. The adjudicator issued interim decisions addressing procedural questions and concerns raised by McIntyre.

Procedural background and motions

Prior to the appeal hearing on August 25, 2025, McIntyre filed two motions: one for the recusal of Justice Scott C. Norton, and another to remove counsel for the respondent. The recusal motion, filed August 1, 2025, alleged a propensity to protect abusive male landlords and adjudicators, but was supported only by McIntyre’s affidavit and not by any transcript, recording, or written decision. The motion to remove respondent’s counsel alleged conflicts of interest and malfeasance, but no evidence was filed to support these claims. Both motions were dismissed, as the court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest, and no solicitor-client relationship between McIntyre and the respondent’s law firm.

Summary of the Small Claims Court decision

The Small Claims Court adjudicator, Darrel Pink, issued an 80-page decision on June 23, 2025, upholding the order for vacant possession and requiring McIntyre to vacate by July 31, 2025. The adjudicator found that McIntyre’s conduct was disruptive and threatening to other tenants, resulting in their departure, and that her communications and actions breached the obligation of good behaviour under the Act. The adjudicator also found that the landlord’s conduct, while at times invasive and controlling, did not breach the Act. Allegations that the landlord used noxious chemicals or engaged in harmful conduct were not supported by the evidence. The adjudicator concluded that there was no possibility of rehabilitating relationships at the premises and ordered McIntyre to vacate.

Legal issues and grounds of appeal

McIntyre’s Notice of Appeal, filed July 6, 2025, comprised 172 pages and raised numerous grounds, including denial of due process, failure to consider evidence, discrimination, failure to accommodate her brain injury, and alleged conflicts of interest. The court reviewed each ground and found them unsupported. The appeal was conducted de novo, and any alleged procedural deficiencies at the Residential Tenancies hearing were subsumed by the new hearing. The adjudicator identified the main issues as whether there was a factual and legal basis for an order for vacant possession and whether the conduct of the respondent warranted a finding in favour of the appellant.

Discussion of policy terms and statutory conditions

The statutory condition at issue was “good behaviour” under the Residential Tenancies Act. The adjudicator applied the objective standard of a reasonable tenant and found that McIntyre’s behaviour, including threats, intimidation, and aggressive surveillance of other tenants, fell below this standard. The adjudicator found that the landlord’s actions did not amount to a breach of the Act. The court confirmed that the adjudicator correctly applied the law and considered all relevant evidence.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Scott C. Norton concluded that McIntyre failed to demonstrate any error of law, jurisdictional error, or failure to follow the requirements of natural justice. The adjudicator acted within the scope of his authority, applied the correct legal tests, and provided a thorough examination and transparent record of the evidence and procedural decisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the order for vacant possession was confirmed, with the date for McIntyre to vacate the premises varied to September 30, 2025. The successful party was 24 Melrose Holdings Inc., and no specific monetary amount was ordered or awarded in the decision.