Well we've been through the tenancy board and they awarded in our favour. They can't enforce it though which is why we have to go to small claims... TBH right now we have had just about enough of shitty tenants so if it just damages their credit scores we'll be happy with that... Does that sound vindictive?

It is the same in the UK. Winning a claim and getting paid are two separate processes.

A small claims judgement does not get registered against the credit bureau. If you know their employer, you can apply for a garnishment order. Not sure about elsewhere, but in BC you can register a lien against vehicles if the debtor is the registered owner.

We have just collected on a small claims judgement, it took registering the judgement against property and a few payment hearings. For a few hundred, I would not bother with courts, for the upper limit of the small claims it is worth it.

It does sound similar. Easy enough to claim on the deposit - if it's enough.

Vindictive? You should hear what I say about the cow that did it to me last year - after all the bending over backwards I did. Still "paying for it" now.

Pay a court fee, make copies of everything, serve the person yourself (if you can find them or pay to have a private detective find them) have your "day in court", win the case, but have no guarantee of actually getting paid even a fraction of the overall losses and face more fees and more hassle with the secondary action needed.

She's somewhere up north as far as I can gather from her various social media accounts. I've made appropriate comments on them where I've been able to.

Sounds like something that needs fixing.

If a criminal court can enforce something, why not a civil court?

What happens if an employment tribunal makes a ruling like re-employment or compensation? Is that enforceable or does that require some further action to be taken by the person winning their case?

Thanks so much for all the help and DandNHill for the link. i sat and read through the agreement last night, and yes the only option appears to be finding someone to sublet for the remainder of the term. Who knows when i speak to the landlord and let him know whats happening, he may be keen to get them in with a new lease we will have to see. 3 months notice can only be given prior to the end of the term, so were way off that. I think next week once we get a little more settled i will have a chat with the landlord, i'd rather he knew what was happening and like someone else said, maybe he has tenants in mind.

A civil court can enforce any judgment obtained. However, this usually requires another Application to the Court, just as it would if, say, Air Canada was Ordered to pay $1,000,000 to an employee terminated inappropriately and then refused to satisfy the judgment.

So the same for tribunal as civil court then, but not as "good" as where, say, someone defaults on a fine from criminal court.

Thanks.

What's the thinking behind that then? Once an award is made and not appealed, why not enforceable without the need for some secondary action on the part of the person who won?

Oh, that's a shame...so what we're saying is really that they are getting away with it? Wonderful!!! Neither owns anything, one does the night shift in Tim's and the other who knows, think he works in a fish plant!!! Both had respectable jobs when they moved in to the two places...

All judgments are enforceable but, as they are different ways to enforce, the Court leaves it for the creditor to determine how best to enforce. A garnishee Order is no good for someone that has little in their accounts or no assets of value; an attachment of earnings Order is no good against someone that is self employed.

If the "winner" has their head on straight, they will determine the best method of enforcement in advance of the final hearing and ask the Court to include the enforcement provisions within the Judgment.

If they are jointly and severally liable, obtain an attachment of earnings Order against the one that works at Timmies.

Thanks, but I'm still wondering a couple of things...

Give the creditor that option, perhaps, but I'm still wondering why the need for further action.

These factors will still apply in a non payment of fines case but they don't appear to um and ah about what method the fines, costs etc are to be paid by so much as about getting it actually paid.

Obviously means and method of paying comes into it but priority seems to go on collection or action for defaulting.

This might be another of those things that varies. When I looked into it for NB's "small claims" the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the court could only issue a judgement.

I just checked and it's been updated. But it says
This is where I'm saying it bloody well should be.

More work, more costs.

In other words you're on a hiding to nothing unless the dispute involves something fixed or straightforward like neighbours or contractors.

Bit of a waste of time for a tenancy dispute when all you knew of a tenant at the time tenancy began has changed.

On a general point, though, what I'm really saying is that a ruling in small claims court - any civil court - should then be pursued by the court in the same way they would if it were a criminal matter.

It sounds like one of those systems that could be simplified in the same way governments like to claim they want to simplify things.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. You've used the law; verdict is the other party has to you pay you. Why's the law not enforcing it's decision?

Imagine the tax office saying yes we owe you a tax refund but it's your responsibility to get it, we're not doing anything to help.

Actually, it was HGerchikov who provided the link, not DandNHill.

I hope you manage to find a way to sign the lease over and start anew.

In BC you can get a garnishment order when you file a claim. You take the garnishment order to the debtor's bank and the bank is compelled to pay the amount in dispute from the debtor's account into court. If you win your case then the court gives the money to you. If you lose then it is returned to the debtor.

Obviously, it only works if the debtor has sufficient funds at the bank. But, if the debtor does not have sufficient funds to pay the debt what is the point of the legal action?

Not jointly and severally liable, these are two tenants renting different units...

Holy cow. That's almost guilty until shown innocent.

Sounds as harsh there as it is weak in NB.