A former federal government employee who decided to remain in an employer-provided housing unit in Iqaluit after her employment term concluded in 2023 will now have to vacate the premises by the end of June and pay half the back rent she owes, a judge has ruled.
The case first came before the courts several months ago when, after almost 10 months since her employment ended, the womanSA国际影视传媒檚 employer, the applicant in the case, discovered she was still residing in the unit and thereafter wanted to evict her.
Although the woman was not paying rent in the unit she continued to occupy after her employment ended, the discovery was made only when she filed a maintenance request for the unit with the employer in January 2024.
According to court transcript outlining the decision made by Nunavut court judge Mark Mossey in June, steps were then taken to evict the woman and recover the rental arrears, which had accumulated since April 2023. After those steps were unsuccessful, the Attorney General of Canada (the Crown), sought resolution through the courts.
The Crown argued that it was not subject to the Nunavut Residential Tenancies Act (NuRTA), relying on Crown immunity and that federal government housing policies override territorial tenancy law.
The Crown then incorrectly sought remedy under the Territorial Lands Act by way of contract and trespass law via a permanent injunction to remove the respondent and to collect rental arrears.
While an earlier court decision in March 2025 noted that applying under this act was the incorrect avenue for recourse, the Crown was granted permission to proceed instead with a statement of claim.
No immunity
In his written decision, Mossey determined that Crown immunity did not apply in this instance, as the occupancy agreement met the definition of a tenancy agreement.
SA国际影视传媒淭he occupancy agreement entered into by the respondent for use of unitSA国际影视传媒� incorporates all of the hallmarks of a traditional rental agreement,SA国际影视传媒� Mossey wrote.
The judge also noted that no direct conflict existed between federal statutes and the NuRTA in this case.
SA国际影视传媒淚n this instance, the federal act simply allows the federal government to enter into a residential tenancy like any private owner is able to do with a rental property. Once it does so, the argument would remain that the federal landlord is subject to the NuRTA as a law of general application,SA国际影视传媒� Mossey wrote.
Pack and pay
In the court decision, Mossey granted an eviction order under the NuRTA for no later than 5 p.m. on June 30, or subsequent removal of the respondent would be undertaken by the sheriff.
In terms of the arrears owed, Mossey noted that while the total amount of unpaid rent for 27 months was $59,656.50, even up until the last court appearance on April 7, SA国际影视传媒渢he applicant was unable to confirm whether the respondent actually remained in the unit.SA国际影视传媒�
SA国际影视传媒淲hile I award the applicant 27 months of rent at $2,209.50, owing to the above reasons, I am deducting 50 per cent of the $59,656.50 owed in rental arrears, meaning the arrears ordered will total $29,828.25 for the 27 months of rent,SA国际影视传媒� Mossey wrote.
The judge awarded court costs in the amount of $1,500 "to reflect a reasonable cost expenditure had an eviction order been sought through the NuRTA.SA国际影视传媒�
The respondent did not attend the court proceedings, nor was she represented by a lawyer.
