Renovictions, Demovictions, and Retaliation under the Residential Tenancies Act
The recent case of a tenant coming home to find her building demolished led to a review of tenants’ options (or lack thereof) to combat unlawful evictions.
Written by Amana Abdosh | 10 min read
On June 10, 2026, a tenant returned to her residence and found that their home was being demolished. Prior to this, there was a dispute between the tenant and the landlord over an eviction for this same demolition. It was heard before the Residential Tenancies Program, where the Director had two weeks to issue the decision. It was during that period the landlord unilaterally decided the fate of the residence. The decision was issued two days after the work began and it stated that the tenant did not have to leave their unit until the end of September (Alex Guye, June 17, 2026). This raises the question of what recourse or consequences are available when a landlord has breached an Order of the Director, particularly in relation to evictions.
Section 23 of the RTA is ineffective
There are two legislated methods outlined in the Nova Scotia's Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) for early termination of a tenancy for the purpose of a demolition, repairs, or a renovation.
The first is prescribed in section 10AB(1) of the RTA. Subsection (1) validates mutual agreements between a tenant and landlord only if it is in writing and in a form required by the Director (aka. the Form DR5). If an agreement cannot be made, subsection (2) requires a landlord to make an application to the Director for an Eviction Order. For a successful application, a landlord must be able to meet the requirements outlined in 10AB(3). That is, they have the required building permits to conduct the work and they in good faith intend to do the renovations as described.
Section 10AB further clarifies that an early termination for the above reasons can only be done by mutual agreement or by an order of the Director. Otherwise, the demoviction or renoviction would be unlawful and the available recourse for a tenant would be compensation prescribed by Section 10AD and s. 10AC(2).
If a Directors order was obtained and a party fails to comply, Section 23 of the RTA sets out a penalty. With the permission of the Attorney General, the party would be subject to a summary conviction and a fine equal to or less than $1,000.
Notably, in 2022, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice shared that there had been "no record of any convictions under section 23 [of the RTA]" and the Royal Canada Mount Police ("RCMP") was "not aware of any RCMP investigations related to violations of section 23… of the Residential Tenancies Act" (Nicola Seguin, September 07, 2022).
A search into caselaw on Section 23 is fruitless, leaving little direction on the use of Section 23. A spokesperson for the RCMP did explain that the RCMP has authority to lay charge if there is an allegation if a "violation or failure to comply with an order of the Small Claims Court has occurred, and the attorney general must approve the laying of the charge" (emphasis added, ibid.). Although this does attempt to provide some guidance, notwithstanding the RCMP's lack of legislative and judicial power, it neglects "a violation or failure to comply with any order, direction, or other requirement of the Director" (emphasis added, RTA, s. 23.).
When there is a dispute within Residential Tenancies, the result is an Order, direction, or requirement of the Director unless the parties reach a mutual agreement, or settlement, prior to. An order from the Small Claims Court is issued when there is an appeal of that Director’s Order, which few tenants do. Especially when they’ve been successful in fighting their eviction at Residential Tenancies.
The apparent lack of section 23 prosecutions suggests that the only enforcement mechanism in the RTA as either ineffective or unused in practice. As a result, many Residential Tenanices decisions are left without an effective means of recourse.
Is there a true crime that criminalizes a landlords abhorrent disobedience?
Criminal mischief under section 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (“Code”) is a criminal law authority that has made its presence in the realm of Residential Tenancies. The provision reads: "Every one commits mischief who wilfully obstructs, interrupts, or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property" (Code, s. 430(1)(c)). The punishment for criminal mischief differs depending on the consequence of the act (see s. 430(2) , s. 430(3) and s. 430(4)). Interestingly, section 430(5.1) of the Code additionally captures the wilful omission to fulfill a duty that likely constitutes mischief.
Since the provision relies on the term "property," it can be used to provide a recourse for landlords. Under section 2 of the Code, "property" is defined under subsection (a) as real and personal property, and subsection (b) includes "property under the control of any person," which a tenant would not have in relation to their rental unit (Code, s. 2). The rental unit would be considered the "real and personal property" of the landlord or under the "control" of the landlord.
In R v Blackbird [2019] M.J. No. 322, the accused had been leasing the complainant’s property. When the accused was moving out, there were alleged to have stolen the washer and dryer, and, in doing so, caused significant damage. They were charged and found guilty of mischief.
The term "property" excludes a tenant whose unit was rendered non-operational or whose enjoyment of their unit was obstructed because of the landlord failure to fulfill their duties, or because of the landlord actions, from the purview of section 430(1)(c).
U.K.’s progressive Protection from Eviction Act 1977
The United Kingdom has a dedicated legislation for evictions. Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (“Eviction Act”), 1977 Chapter 43. The purpose of this legislation is to protect tenants, who fall under its definition of “residential occupier” under subsection 1(1), from unlawful eviction. It further legislates available recourses and penalties for the breach of the law.
Interestingly, the legislation uses the language: “unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof” (Eviction Act, s. 1(2)), which effectively covers different situations. Demoviction, renovictions, or anything that falls within the descriptions falls within the purview of the Eviction Act. It also operates to protect a part of the premise, not exclusively the enjoyment of the entire premise. Furthermore, the legislation clarifies that it keeps a watchful eye on not just landlords, but any agent of the landlord.
The United Kingdom not just legislates against unlawful action that result in the deprivation of any premises, but also omissions. Omissions include any persistent withdrawal or withholding of “services that are reasonable required” under section 1(3) of the Eviction Act.
A landlord’s breach will result in fines and/or imprisonment if convicted criminally, or a financial penalty if they have not been criminally convicted (Evictions Act, s. 1(3), F2(3B), F51A). In comparison, the RTA’s available remedy is compensation required under section 10AC(2) and 10AD for early termination for demolition, repairs or renovations. The compensation relates to rent payable to the tenant, and does not go further.
The United Kingdom is more progressive with regards to tenants’ rights, whereas Nova Scotia has quite some room to improve. A meaningful consequence of landlords who disobey orders or decision of the director would do more to deter landlords from weighing a cost-risk benefit analysis.