A federal government department cannot claim immunity from Nunavut’s residential tenancy laws when providing housing to employees, the territory’s court has ruled in a case involving a former public servant who remained in government housing for over two years after her employment ended.
The Attorney General of Canada sought to evict A.N., a former Fisheries and Oceans Canada training officer, from a government-provided housing unit in Iqaluit. The employee’s one-year contract ended March 31, 2023, but she continued living in the unit without paying rent.
The federal government argued it was not subject to territorial housing legislation and instead tried to pursue eviction through contract and trespass law. However, Justice Mossey of the Nunavut Court of Justice rejected this position and applied the territory’s Residential Tenancies Act to order the eviction.
Crown immunity claim rejected
The Attorney General claimed Crown immunity, arguing that federal legislation does not explicitly state the government is bound by territorial residential tenancy laws. The department pointed to section 17 of the Federal Interpretation Act, which states that “No enactment is binding on His Majesty or affects His Majesty or His Majesty’s rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment.”
However, the court found this argument failed because the federal government had entered into what amounted to a tenancy agreement with the employee, thereby placing itself within the jurisdiction of territorial housing law.
The court noted that the Residential Tenancies Act is “a law of general application” that “applies to everyone within a specific jurisdiction, encompassing all citizens, the state, or a large portion of the community.”
Occupancy agreement deemed tenancy
Central to the ruling was whether the employee’s “occupancy agreement” constituted a tenancy agreement under territorial law. Despite federal policy documents stating that “No formal landlord-tenant relationship exists between the government and employee-occupants of government-provided accommodation,” the court found otherwise.
The occupancy agreement contained all the elements of a traditional rental arrangement, including rent payments, repair obligations, entry notice requirements, and restrictions on use. The court particularly noted clause 14 of the agreement, which required the occupant to “comply with all statutes, regulations and by-laws of any federal, provincial or municipal authority which affect the premises or their use and occupation.”
The court cited the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Potash v. Royal Trust Co., referencing the “long standing principle that parties cannot contract out of statutory provisions enacted in the public interest.”
Federal paramountcy argument fails
The Attorney General also argued that even if territorial housing law applied, federal legislation should take precedence under the doctrine of paramountcy. This doctrine holds that where valid but conflicting federal and provincial or territorial laws both apply, federal law prevails.
The court rejected this argument, finding no valid federal legislation that conflicts with territorial tenancy law. The judge noted that federal authority over public property simply allows the government “to enter into a residential tenancy like any private owner is able to do with a rental property.”
Employment housing termination
The case highlighted provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act dealing specifically with employer-provided housing. Section 56 states that when an employee’s job ends, their tenancy terminates immediately, and they must vacate within one week.
The court noted this creates “an often underappreciated and perilous consequence of employer provided housing” for employees.
In this case, the employee’s tenancy terminated March 31, 2023, when her employment ended, but she remained in the unit. The government only discovered her continued occupancy in January 2024 when she filed a maintenance request for the unit.
Damages reduced for government delay
While ordering eviction and rental arrears, the court reduced the compensation owing to the government by 50 per cent, acknowledging the department’s significant delay in discovering and addressing the situation.
The court calculated 27 months of rent at $2,209.50 per month, totaling $59,656.50, but reduced this to $29,828.25. The reduction reflected that the government “remained unaware of its overholding tenant for 10 months after the termination of the tenancy” and could have sought court action sooner.
Simplified procedure available
The ruling emphasized that territorial housing law provides employers with “an efficient, affordable, and accessible remedy” when former employees fail to vacate employer-provided housing. The normal procedure requires only an originating notice and supporting affidavit.
However, the federal government initially chose a more complex legal route, first attempting to proceed under the Territorial Lands Act before switching to contract and trespass claims. The court allowed this procedural irregularity to continue but noted the simpler housing law procedure would have been more appropriate.
The court awarded the government $1,500 in legal costs, reflecting what reasonable costs would have been had the proper housing law procedure been followed from the start.
For more information, see The Attorney General of Canada v. Niviatsiak, 2025 CanLII 59212 (NU CJ).
