In Heywood v Songhees Nation, 2026 BCCA 150, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed that Songhees Nation – a lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking Nation with reserve lands near Victoria – has no duty to financially compensate residents after closing an on-reserve manufactured home park last fall.
Background
The Nation purchased the park lands from the estate of a deceased member in 2019. In 2021, the Nation provided the residents with three years’ notice of park closure, explaining that the lands were to be redeveloped to provide much-needed member housing. The notice was later extended to four years – far exceeding the one-year notice required under the BC Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, which applies only off-reserve.
The residents commenced a court action to challenge the closure. They argued that the manufactured homes – some of which had been placed on the lands decades ago – had become “de facto fixtures” that could not practically be moved, at least without considerable expense. The residents asserted long-term interests in the lands, arguing that these interests could not be terminated by the Nation on even the lengthy notice period provided. In the alternative, they claimed financial compensation (under the doctrine of unjust enrichment) for the fair market value of any homes left behind.
The judge below dismissed the residents’ claims in their entirety (2025 BCSC 1167), finding, among other things, that:
- the residents at most had month-to-month tenancies, which could be terminated by either party on one month’s notice;
- the Nation had provided “more than reasonable” notice of park closure; and
- the Nation owed no financial compensation to the residents because the Nation had not claimed the homes for itself, but instead had given residents a fair chance to remove the property.
The judge also found that the homes – which the residents’ own evidence showed to be practically moveable – were “chattels” (personal property) and that the residents were required to remove them at the end of their tenancies.
A portion of the residents appealed from the judge’s determinations that (1) the Nation did not need to compensate them for the homes and (2) the homes were chattels that needed to be removed.
The Appeal
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the residents’ claims for financial compensation could not succeed, although for slightly different reasons than the judge below.
First, the Court found that the homes were properly characterized as “fixtures” – meaning that they formed part of the land itself – rather than personal property that the residents were required at common law to remove. (The tenancy arrangements in this case did not otherwise include terms requiring the removal of the homes.) The Court emphasized that the “fixtures” test focuses on whether and how the property has been affixed to the land. The judge had erred, however, by considering irrelevant factors, such as whether the Nation had consented to the affixation and the fact that the park was located on reserve lands.
Second, despite concluding that the homes had become fixtures – and hence now belonged to the Nation – the Court confirmed that Songhees had not been “unjustly enriched” and that it owed no compensation to the residents. Significantly, while the judge had found that Songhees would acquire a tangible benefit in the form of the homes realizable market value, the Court concluded that the homes held no value for the Nation, as the Nation had consistently made clear that it did not want to retain the property and had given the residents considerable time to arrange for removal.
The Court also rejected the residents’ allegation that the Nation had acted unfairly toward them, including by taxing them in accordance with the Nation’s taxation laws. The Court reasoned at paragraphs 54 and 55:
As for the Songhees Nation taxing the appellants on their housing, in my view, given that the Songhees Nation owned the underlying land, this cannot be seen as unconscionable. Nor did Songhees Nation mislead the appellants about their legal rights.
I agree 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. There is, with respect, nothing unfair or inequitable about Songhees Nation exercising its legal rights to reclaim this part of its reserve land for the use of its members.
Key Takeaways
The decision offers several important lessons for landlords and residents of on-reserve manufactured home parks:
- Know the terms of the tenancy. It is critical for parties to research and understand the terms of their leases or tenancy arrangements. Notably, many of the residents had alleged reliance on vague rumours of a non-existent 99-year lease. The reality, however, was that their tenancies were always terminable on one month’s notice.
- Contracting around fixtures is possible. Even though the Court found that the manufactured homes at issue were fixtures – a determination that is highly context-dependent and which need not apply in all cases involving manufactured homes – parties can agree in advance on how property will be handled at the end of a lease or tenancy. For example, they can expressly require the tenant to remove the manufactured home at the end of the term, regardless of whether it might otherwise be considered a fixture.
- Freedom of choice matters. Finally, the decision reaffirms the importance of protecting the defendant’s freedom of choice under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. On appeal, the residents had argued that the homes should be assumed to be beneficial to the Nation, regardless of the Nation’s own views. The Court rejected that argument, emphasizing that Songhees’ refusal to retain the property meant there was no unjust enrichment.