* A Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench has upheld the
decision of a hearing officer appointed under the Saskatchewan
Residential Tenancies Act in which the hearing officer concluded
that she did not have jurisdiction to issue an order for possession
because the tenant living on rented property was also engaged in
farming that property. The tenant testified that he raised sheep,
goats and a few cows for meat production on a property that
included 40 acres of pasture land. The Court concluded that there
was no grounds to interfere with the hearing officer's
decision. (Liu v Betham, CALN/2016-002,  S.J. No. 9,
Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan)
Farm Leases -- Jurisdiction of Saskatchewan Office of the
Gordon Baillie ("Baillie"), who owned 40 acres of
pasture land near Abernathy, Saskatchewan appealed to the
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench from an October 30, 2015
decision of a hearing officer of the Office of the Residential
Tenancies (the "Hearing Officer").
Baillie had applied to the Hearing Officer for an order for
possession against his tenant, Tim Betham ("Betham")
alleging that Betham was overholding after service of a notice that
terminated the tenancy.
The Hearing Officer concluded that she did not have jurisdiction
to hear the matter because ".this is a farming situation where
the living accommodation is rented by the Tenant who is engaged in
Section 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (Saskatchewan)
What this Act does not apply to
5 This Act does not apply to:
(e) living accommodation that is located on property that is
being farmed if the living accommodation is being rented by the
person engaged in farming that property;
Both Baillie and Betham were self-represented at the appeal to
the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench.
Decision: Dawson, J. dismissed the appeal [at para. 10].
Dawson, J. referred to the evidence before the Hearing Officer,
including the tenant's evidence that he continued to raise
sheep, goats and a few cows on the land for meat production and
that the property included 40 acres of pasture land.
Dawson, J. observed that it had been established by the decision
of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Reich v Lohse (1994), 1994
CanLII 4691 (SK CA), 123 Sask R 114 (CA) that the Court's
jurisdiction is limited to errors of law or jurisdiction in an
appeal from a Hearing Officer [at para. 6].
Dawson, J. concluded [at para. 7 to 9]:
 Here, the hearing officer determined that pursuant to s. 5
of the Act, the Act did not apply to the tenant, Tim Betham,
because Betham lived in accommodation that was located on property
that was being farmed by Tim Betham. Mr. Betham was engaged in
farming that property.
 The submissions before me confirm that the tenant, Tim
Betham, is renting living accommodation from the landlord and that
Tim Betham is engaged in farming on the property that is the
subject of the tenancy arrangement.
 The appellant landlord has failed to satisfy me that the
hearing officer made an error in determining that she did not have
jurisdiction to hear this matter.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that courts will generally support and uphold decisions of condominium directors because they are better positioned than judges to make decisions pertaining to their buildings.
According to the city bylaws in Calgary, the grading of lots for new buildings must be done properly so that the water never flows toward the new building or any other nearby properties, but away from those buildings.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).