Tenant at Sufferance (Non-RTA)

Edmonton (City) v. Monson, 1997 CanLII 14826 (AB QB)

[44] What then was Monson’s status when he remained on the property after May 26, 1996? I have concluded that he was then a tenant at sufferance. This type of tenancy is described in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows:

Such tenancy arises when one comes into the possession of property by lawful title, but wrongfully holds over after the termination his interest. … He has no estate nor title but only naked possession without right and wrongfully, and stands in no privity to landlord and is not entitled to notice to quit, and is a bare licensee to whom landlord owes merely duty not wantonly nor wilfully to injure him.

[45] There was no waiver by the City of the notice to vacate issued on February 26, 1997.

[46] Monson is not entitled, in law or in equity, to any further lengthy grace period to vacate the premises. He is therefore required to vacate the premises by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 27, 1997. If Monson does not vacate the premises as required, a writ of possession will be issued without further order of the court. Paragraph 4 of Master Breitkreuz’s order of June 24, 1996 applies to the order which this court now grants.