73-year-old B.C. woman successfully fights 'questionable eviction' in court

A 73-year-old woman from B.C successfully had a four-month eviction notice overturned after a judge cited ‘questionable eviction practices” were in play.

According to the B.C. Supreme Court decision, JF has lived in the same rental unit for over two decades. She lives there with her 69-year-old partner, who is deaf and dealing with stage 4 cancer and multiple sclerosis.

For rent, she only pays $780 per month.

JF “believes that her rent is the lowest in the building. Losing this long-standing, affordable housing would cause severe hardship for both [JF] and her partner,” the decision notes. JF filed a petition for judicial review.

The eviction saga began in October 2023, when the building in which JF lives was sold to new owners. After the purchase, she was served with a “Notice to End Tenancy for Demolition and Conversion of the Rental Unit.”

That notice was cancelled because the landlord’s name was spelled wrong.

In February 2024, she was served with a four-month notice to end tenancy for the same reason.

“The Landlord asserted that it intended to convert the rental unit for use by a caretaker,” the decision states.

JF contested the decision with the RTB but was unsuccessful. In June 2024, the landlord was granted an order of possession. JF was eventually informed she had to vacate her home by Sept. 30, 2024. She filed the Supreme Court petition on Sept. 24, 2024.

The 73-year-old tried to argue that the decision was unfair.

“She asserts that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to assess the credibility of the landlord’s affidavit evidence, by accepting that the Landlord provided the notice in good faith, by improperly dismissing her concerns about procedural fairness, and by not providing sufficient reasons,” the petition says.

At one point, JF even attempted to negotiate a rent increase to avoid eviction, but the landlord’s agent refused, arguing that he could rent the unit for up to $2,000 more than she was paying. JF is still residing in the unit, and the judge credited the landlord for not enforcing the Order of Possession until the judicial review was complete.

The primary arguments on both sides

There were three main points of contention from JF’s perspective:

• She claimed she wasn’t allowed to cross-examine the witness, who was a key part of the arbitrator’s decision
• She claimed she was pressured to conclude her submissions prematurely
• The arbitrator didn’t offer adequate reasoning for their decision

She also stated that a delay in filing a judicial review was justified due to concerns for her own health.

In defence, the landlord claimed that the initial decision was not erroneous and that JF’s petition should be dismissed with costs. The landlord also stated that JF’s strategic decisions were responsible for her missing the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and contributed to other shortcomings, rather than procedural unfairness.

“I note that the arbitrator accepted, on the evidence before them, that the Landlord intended in good faith to employ a live-in caretaker. However, the analysis stopped there. It did not extend to the second element of the test: considering whether the Landlord had an ulterior motive in making that decision, or in designating [JF]’s unit, rather than another available or comparable unit, as the one to be used,” the petition says.

JF was able to offer three other eviction notices as evidence. Those notices were served to other renters in the building, and each of the notices cited ‘family use’ as the grounds for eviction.

“While these notices were not directly at issue in this proceeding, they were significant because they suggested a broader pattern of questionable eviction practices aimed at removing tenants paying below-market rent,” the decision states.

The judge suggested that the arbitrator should’ve considered that evidence in assessing the landlord’s credibility, “particularly given that the onus rested with the Landlord to establish that the Second Notice was issued in good faith.”

The landlord’s case relied on two specific documents to support the proposition that JF’s unit would be used as a caretaker’s residence. Meanwhile, JF was able to provide emails from the property manager that suggested the unit would be uninhabitable and required repairs that would take several months to complete. Those communications stated that those repairs couldn’t proceed while JF was in the unit.

“Despite this evidence, the arbitrator did not explain why greater weight was given to the caretaker’s affidavit and employment agreement over the petitioner’s contemporaneous documentary evidence from the Landlord’s own contractor and property manager.”

The arbitrator did not address the inconsistencies.

Ultimately, the judge tossed out the initial decisions regarding the eviction and ordered a new RTB hearing with a different decision-maker.

You might also like:
• Average rent in Vancouver has undergone a drastic shift since 2023
• Some Vancouverites ain't happy about the Harry Potter event but not why you think
• 'Palace in heaven': Vancouver home sold for $5M above the assessed value

Want to stay on top of all things Vancouver? Follow us on X