Glover v McFarlane
Tenant wins · Maynooth · 2025-04-14
- Adjudicator
- John Cashmore
- Dispute
- Breach of Conditions, Jurisdiction, Termination (Superintendent'S Premises)
- Landlord
- J.G.
- Tenant
- D.M., G.B.
- Landlord rep
- Julian Binavince, Mitch Newton
- Tenant rep
- Nicholas McLeod
What happened
The Landlord applied to evict the Tenants from a property described as a superintendent's unit, following the termination of their employment as property managers for a resort. The Landlord also claimed compensation for unpaid utilities. The Tenants argued that their living situation was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). The property consists of a main house where the Tenants live and three short-term rental cottages on a 28-acre "resort". The Board found that the cottages are not "rental units" under the RTA, and the Tenants' work related to a short-term rental business, not a residential complex. Therefore, the unit was not a "superintendent's premises". However, the Board agreed with the Tenants that the tenancy is exempt from the RTA under section 5(h) because the living accommodation is in a building used for non-residential purposes (resort office/facilities) and occupancy was conditional on employment related to that business. The Landlord's application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The ruling
The Landlord's application to evict the Tenants from what was claimed to be a superintendent's unit and for compensation for unpaid utilities is dismissed. The Board found it does not have jurisdiction because the tenancy is exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, under section 5(h). This is because the living accommodation is in a building used for non-residential business purposes (a resort office) and the Tenants' occupancy was conditional on their employment related to that business.