Landlord Rasem Ghreir rented a basement laundry room located at 5393 Waverly Terrace, Halifax, NS B3H 1J1 and described it on the lease as “One bedroom in a 4‑bedroom house.”
Monthly rent charged: CA$950 + electricity & water.
📍 Address of rental unit: 5393 Waverly Terrace, Halifax, NS B3H 1J1, Canada
👤 Applicant (victim tenant): Hongyu Shen
🏠 Address: 1083 Queen Street, Apt. 260, Halifax NS, B3H 0B2
🧑💼 Respondent (landlord): Rasem Ghreir
🏢 Address: 414 - 3840 Joseph Howe, Halifax NS, B3L 4G2
🪪 LinkedIn:
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/rasem-ghreir-b860b8229
The victim tenant contacted the Residential Tenancies office for assistance. The hearing took place on December 17, 2024.
DECISION and ORDER
[1] In this appeal the Tenant is seeking compensation of $1,500 for what he asserts was a breach of his human rights. This is based on the fact that the basement unit he rented was also the laundry room for the other three tenants in the building and he had no privacy or security since the room was not locked or lockable and other tenants could use and did use the washer and dryer at various times thereby disturbing his sleep.
[2] The tenancy was pursuant to a fixed term lease for the period September 1, 2023, to August 31, 2024. Rent was $950 monthly.
[3] The Tenant also signed a new lease for the period September 1, 2024 - August 31, 2025, but negotiated a release of that lease through payment of $1,500, the same amount of this present claim. The entering into and the release of the second fixed term lease is not directly in issue in the case before me.
[4] The Landlord points out the Tenant never complained until August 2024 about the state of the premises and had mentioned in a text around that same time period that "the house is good, the reason is not I'm not satisfied with it" with respect to why he was leaving.
[5] A video was tendered by the Tenant on a thumb drive which shows the subject premises and the rest of the building. The building has two floors and a basement. The basement which is where the Tenant's unit was is accessed by stairs from the main floor. There is a door at the top. The door knob on that door is not capable of being locked. The stairs and the floor of the basement below are carpeted and the walls are gyprocked. At the bottom of the stairs and to the right is the Tenant's living area which at the time of the video had a small bed and a small table. No other furniture was observed. There is no bathroom or kitchen. Those are shared facilities which are on the upstairs floor and the main floor respectively.
[6] If one goes straight at the bottom of the stairs in the basement there are then two stairs which go up to an area containing the washer and dryer. This area might be described as an alcove and is around a corner from the Tenant's living area but is quite nearby, perhaps six, eight or ten feet away from the Tenant's bed, as depicted in the video.
[7] The Tenant makes three assertions about the issues with the premises. First, he says that because there is no door on his actual premises and no locking door at the top of the stairs he has a significant lack of privacy. He also says there is a lack of security and safety because he has no way of securing his valuables or other property from any of the other tenants. He also says he was subjected to excessive noise from the washer and dryer even including one morning when he was sleeping at approximately 5:00 a.m. As noted, he claims that these deficiencies constitute a breach of human rights.
Analysis
[8] I start by dismissing any claim relating to alleged breach of human rights. Respectfully, I see that there is no linkage between what is being claim here and any on the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act, RSNS 1989, c. 214. And there is the further significant issue of whether, on an appeal of a residential tenancies matter, there is jurisdiction to consider a human rights complaint.
[9] In all events, I am not entertaining any such allegation since I see no basis whatsoever for it.
[10] However, I do find that the Tenant does have a legitimate complaint regarding the premises. The legal basis for his complaint is solidly in the Nova Scotia Residential Tenancies Act, RSNS 1989, c. 430. I will explain.
[11] Section 9(1) of the Act contains the statutory conditions. The first one is directly relevant here. Along with the preface to the various conditions, they read as follows:
Statutory conditions
9 (1)Notwithstanding any lease, agreement,waiver , declaration or other statement to the contrary, where the relation of landlord and tenant exists in respect of residential premises by virtue of this Act or otherwise,there is and is deemed to be an agreement between the landlord and tenant that the following conditions will apply as between the landlord and tenant as statutory conditions governing the residential premises :
Statutory Conditions
1. Condition of Premises - The landlord shall keep the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation during the tenancy andshall comply with any statutory enactment or law respecting standards of health, safety or housing .
[12] By-Law M-200 of Halifax Regional Municipality is a "law respecting standards of health, safety or housing". Therefore, any applicable provisions of By-Law M-200 are incorporated by reference as a statutory condition under the Residential Tenancies Act and must be complied with by all landlords of residential premises within Halifax Regional Municipality. The premises in this case are situate in the south end of the Halifax peninsula and are clearly within HRM.
[13] In my view, these premises do not comply with several provisions of HRM By-Law M-200. I refer to the following.
[14] First, I note the definition of "mini-suite" which is the category that these premises would fall under:
2. (2) (la) "mini-suite" means a single room or series of rooms occupied or intended to be occupied under a separate tenancy that shares either kitchen or bathroom facilities with no less than three other separate tenancies, but does not include:
(i) a dwelling unit; or
(ii) an institution under the Homes for Special Care Act or any other general or special Act.
[15] The premises in this case would appear to be in breach of the following four provisions of HRM By-Law 200:
Sleeping Rooms
25. A sleeping room shall:
(c) not serve any other uses such as a lobby, hallway, closet, bathroom, laundry room, stairway, kitchen or service room.
Laundry Rooms
26A. (2) Except where otherwise required by the Building Code, all common laundry rooms not within a dwelling unit shall:
(b) be separated from the remainder of the building by a fire separation that need not have a fire-resistance rating
Part 4A: MINI-SUITES
General Provisions
28E. (1) This part shall not relieve any owner of a mini-suite from complying with all of the other standards of this By-law or any other applicable legislation.
(2) The owner shall maintain common spaces in a clean, secure and sanitary condition at all times and without limiting the generality of the foregoing shall:(a) provide working locks on all tenant suites that are operable from inside without requiring keys or specialized knowledge; and
Life Safety Provisions
28F. (1) Every mini-suite shall be separated from the remainder of the floor area with a fire separation including a solid core door with a self-closing device and positive latching mechanism acceptable to the Inspector.
[16] It would appear that all of those provisions just cited are contravened here. For purposes of the claim before me, that means the Tenant did not receive what he was entitled to receive under the lease. Part of what he paid rent for was to receive premises which complied with the statutory conditions including number 1 quoted above. As a matter of law he was entitled to receive premises which complied with the HRM By-law M-200. The premises that he received and for which he paid $950 per month did not comply with HRM By-law 200.
[17] Specifically, the sleeping room that he was provided also served as a laundry room (section 25). The laundry room here was not separated from the rest of the building by fire separation (section 26A(2)(b)). The premises did not have a working lock which was operable from inside the unit (section 28E(2)(a)). Finally, the unit rented to the Tenant here was not separated from the remainder of the floor area with fire separation (section 28F).
[18] As I have said, the Tenant did not receive what he was legally entitled to under the Residential Tenancies Act. It follows that he is entitled to some compensation. He is seeking $1,500 which on a monthly basis would be $125. I think that is a reasonable amount for not receiving what he was clearly entitled to receive under the referenced statutory condition.
[19] I allow that amount.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Landlord pay to the Tenant the sum of $1,500.
DATED at Halifax, Nova Scotia this 31st day of March, 2025.
MICHAEL O'HARA
ADJUDICATOR