Ruling finds her unlawfully living in property worth multi-millions without trustee's consent
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has granted summary judgment in favour of a trustee in a case concerning a third party’s allegedly unlawful occupation of property owned by a trust.
A man owned a multi-million-dollar property in Glen Margaret, Nova Scotia. He and the defendant in this case had a conjugal relationship. They began living together in the property in 2010. In October 2021, he executed a will and conveyed his sole interest in the property to a trust. He passed away in September 2022.
A dispute arose between the defendant and his daughter, who was the plaintiff in this case. The man’s will directed that the property be sold. The will gave the defendant the right to reside at the property for six months following his death, a $1 million gift, and another $1 million to be held in trust for her lifetime.
The plaintiff, acting as trustee, told the defendant to vacate the property. The defendant refused. The plaintiff asked the court to order the defendant to leave the property and asked for summary judgment to resolve the matter without a full trial.
The defendant argued that the deceased made promises that she should have the right to occupy the property until she received her financial gifts from the estate. The defendant also claimed that there was a lease agreement allowing her to stay as a tenant in the property.
Defendant ordered to leave
In Backman v. Attis, 2024 NSSC 229, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court directed the trust to pay the defendant her $1 million gift. However, the court ordered the defendant to vacate the property by the end of September after identifying any personal items that she wished to take and handing over the keys and security codes to the plaintiff.
The court found no genuine issue of material fact to warrant a trial. The court determined that the trust was the property’s legal owner and that the defendant had been unlawfully occupying it without the trustee’s consent.
The court dismissed the defendant’s claims of promissory estoppel and tenancy based on insufficient evidence to support these defences.
The court noted that the lease agreement had expired in April 2016 and found no evidence to prove that the lease had been renewed or that rent had been paid after that point. The court added that the defendant’s conjugal relationship with the deceased did not support the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.
