Hay River (Mar 07/05) - A Hay River man has been ordered to pay more than $7,000 in unpaid lease fees and back taxes and has until March 31 to vacate the two West Channel lots where he has been living with his four children.

Greg Nessel and his four children, including Gatlin and Dawn pictured here, are facing eviction from land in Hay River on which their house sits.

On Feb. 11, Supreme Court Justice John Vertes told Greg Nessel that he must leave the leased land and remove his house from the property.

If the house is not removed it will become the property of the Town of Hay River and can be sold to cover some of the money Nessel owes.

According to court documents, Nessell must pay $5,950.84 in unpaid lease fees and compensation for occupation of the land after expiry of the lease and $1,183.25 in property tax arrears and interest.

Nessel was also ordered to pay an additional $2,000 in court fees.

Nessel received an eviction notice from the town in December 2003. The town is the lessee of the land, which is owned by the Commissioner of the NWT.

The legal action began in April 2004 when the town sought a court order for Nessel to vacate the land because of the unpaid lease fees and property taxes.

While disappointed, Nessel isn't surprised by the ruling.

"I kind of figured," he said, noting he represented himself in court because he could not get Legal Aid for a civil matter.

Nessel said he has made many attempts to re-sign the lease since 2000, but the town would not deal with him.

"Whatever I did, they refused it," he said.

He is not sure what he will do next, noting he lives on disability income and is almost broke. "I can't even afford to rent another house."

Nessel hopes to be able to sell the house and move to Edmonton.

The house will not be left on the property for the town, he said.

"I'll rip it apart so they can't have it. That's for damn sure," he said.

Town lawyer Michelle Staszuk was not available for comment.

However, in a court hearing last year, she told Vertes there was no hope of an out-of-court settlement.

Staszuk said the town was unwilling to enter into a new lease assignment with Nessel.

In 1999, Nessel subleased two side-by-side parcels of land - one residential and the other storage - from the previous sublessor.

At that time, he paid $1,059 in arrears owed by the previous sublessor.

Vertes noted that, in accordance with the terms of the subleases, the town invoiced Nessel for rent and property taxes, but he was continually in arrears. He made two payments - one in 2001 and another in 2002 - totalling $3,605.

The sublease for the residential lot expired in August 2001, while the sublease for the storage parcel expired in June 2002.

In his ruling, Vertes noted the municipality mailed letters to Nessel offering to renew the subleases, but all outstanding rent and taxes had to be paid prior to renewal.

"The respondent (Nessel) has never executed renewals for the subleases," Vertes wrote.

No legal impediment

The judge noted Nessel asked the court to do something it could not do - order the town to renew or give him a new sublease.

"Whatever one may think about the attitude of the town's officials in not wanting to deal with the respondent anymore - and I think they may have good reason for that - there is no legal impediment to the town getting the relief it requests. The respondent had obligations and did not fulfill them."