B.C landlord must pay evicted tenants hefty sum after renovation issues

A North Vancouver landlord took two former tenants to the B.C. Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn a Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) arbitrator’s decision that would have cost nearly $70,000.

MS filed a petition for judicial review, asking the B.C. Supreme Court to set aside the earlier RTB decision made in July  2023 in the dispute resolution with TT and RT.

According to the Reasons for Judgment, the petitioner claimed that the original decision by the arbitrator should be set aside because it was patently unreasonable and that the arbitrator failed to consider the evidence of the extenuating circumstances.

The eviction and RTB hearings

TT and RT lived at MS’s residence in North Vancouver from 2014 to 2022, paying a monthly rent of $5,650.

According to court documents, MS entered into an oral agreement with AT and EC on or around June 16, 2022, for the pair to purchase the property, with a written agreement signed on June 29.

The tenants were served with a two-month notice to end tenancy for the landlord’s use of the property, as the buyers had plans to occupy the residence. TT and RT moved out on Aug. 1, 2022.

Issues began to arise when AT and EC started extensive renovations on the residence without obtaining the proper paperwork from the City of North Vancouver.

“The city in March 2023 issued a stop-work order,” explained Justice Chan in the Reasons for Judgement. “The buyers did not obtain the proper permits until May 2024. I understand the property is still fully gutted with no one residing there currently.”

The tenants filed for compensation through the RTB in 2023, which awarded them 12 months of rent valued at $67,800 plus the $100 filing fee,” as the stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy was not accomplished.”

A second RTB hearing before the same adjudicator was held in December 2024, with the tenants once again being awarded the maximum amount at that time, $65,000, plus the filing fee.

The landlord’s argument and the judge’s decision

Court documents reveal that the buyers of MS’s property had the option to complete the purchase over a five-year option term from Oct. 1, 2022, to Oct. 1, 2027. AT and EC had to make a down payment of $100,000, after which they would pay $5,800 a month in interest payments.

The landlord claimed that the buyers had possession of the property but did not occupy it. Because of that, he had no control over the property and should not be held liable, as the RTB arbitrator found. Rather, it should be the buyers who have to pay.

Also among the landlord’s arguments was his claim that he and his two tenants had come to a mutual agreement to end the tenancy, and thus he should not be held liable.

However, the Reasons for Judgment explained that the landlord was not entitled to serve TT and RT the two-month notice to end the tenancy in the first place, as there was no unconditional sale of the residence as required under the Residential Tenancy Act.

Court docs also highlighted that the arbitrator found the buyers’ extenuating circumstances, which led to a delay in their occupation of the property, to be “irrelevant.”

“There is no evidence the tenants agreed to end the tenancy in this case,” wrote Justice Chan. “The evidence is the tenants were provided the two-month notice pursuant to s. 49 of the RTA, did not dispute it, and moved out. That is a very different situation than a mutual agreement to end a tenancy.”

The B.C. Supreme Court justice also explained that the buyers did not meet the definition of purchasers as they hadn’t agreed to buy at least half of the full reversionary interest in the North Shore property.

“The agreement to sell the property is an option purchase agreement… As the arbitrator noted, if the option is never exercised, the tenancy agreement would have been needlessly terminated.”

Court documents also showed that the judge disagreed with the landlord’s claim that he should not be held liable as he had no control over the property.

“The Landlord was not entitled to provide the two-month notice to end tenancy, as there was no unconditional sale of the Property as required under the RTA,” wrote Justice Chan. “The arbitrator considered the policy objectives of the RTA, the need to protect tenants from improper evictions, and that it was the landlord who completed and served the two-month notice to the tenants, to conclude the landlord ought to be responsible.”

The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision and dismissed the petition from the landlord.

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