Background
The appellants, who are not members of Songhees Nation, were evicted from their homes located in a long-established manufactured home park on the Songhees Nation’s reserve.
Songhees Nation gave three years’ notice of the end of the residents’ tenancies as it wished to regain its own use of the land to fulfill its members’ needs for housing.
The appellants brought a claim advancing various legal theories with a goal of seeking a right to continue occupying their homes and Songhees Nation brought a summary trial application seeking dismissal of the claim.
Songhees Nation’s application was granted and the appellants’ claim dismissed. The appellants were ordered to vacate the lands and remove their manufactured homes from the lands. The appellants took no issues with the order to vacate the lands but appealed the order to remove their manufactured homes from the lands and the trial judge’s failure to award them damages for unjust enrichment.
Analysis
The chamber judge’s order to remove the manufactured homes was largely dependant on their finding that the homes were fixtures, not chattels.1 Generally, if a chattel is placed on the land by a tenant, and the tenancy is terminated, the tenant has an obligation to remove it. If an object is placed on property with the property owner’s consent, and it becomes a fixture, it has essentially become part of the property, and the tenant has no obligation to remove it when the tenancy ends.
Noting that the manufactured homes were wheelless and affixed to the land, and that the affixing of the homes to the land was to enhance the use of the land as an established residential neighbourhood, the Court concluded that the chambers judge had erred and her order should be varied – as fixtures, the homes did not need to be removed.
Regarding unjust enrichment, the Court noted that the applicable test requires a finding that there is an incontrovertible benefit to the defendant and agreed with the chambers judge’s conclusions but for different reasons. First, the homes are of no value or benefit to the Songhees Nation, which did not want to retain them. Second, the common law rule permitting the Songhees Nation to retain the homes as fixtures at the conclusion of the tenancy is a valid reason for any enrichment that may have occurred. Finally, the Court agreed with the chambers judge that Songhees Nation did not act unconscionably and that it gave considerable notice and opportunity for the appellants to move their homes.
Key Takeaways
For those First Nations who host manufactured home communities on their reserve, this case provides useful guidance should they wish to regain their own use of the land. First, considerable notice should be given (three years in this case). Second, it should not be assumed that the residents will be required to remove the homes they occupied from the reserve lands. Third, if the residents are entitled to remove their homes from the property, or if they are otherwise given the opportunity to do so, they should be given plenty of time to do so.
Footnotes
1 At a high level, a fixture is an item permanently attached to the property. A chattel is a moveable piece of personal property that is not attached to the property and moves with the owner.
This case summary provides our general comments on the case discussed and should not be relied on as legal advice.
See CanLII for the Reasons for Judgment.
