Vancouver landlord's 'extenuating circumstances' lead to Supreme Court tenant eviction battle

A Vancouver landlord’s attempt to overturn a Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) arbitrator’s decision and avoid paying a former tenant over $20,000 ended up in the B.C. Supreme Court.

ZF filed a petition for judicial review, asking the B.C. Supreme Court to set aside the earlier RTB decision made in January 2025 in the dispute resolution with former tenant YW.

According to the Reasons for Judgement, the landlord alleged that the arbitrator’s decision in favour of the tenant was both patently unreasonable and tainted by procedural unfairness.

“A central issue in the case is whose perspective is relevant to the question of whether extenuating circumstances existed to excuse the landlord from compliance with the six-month minimum residence requirement under s. 52(3) of the RTA,” wrote Justice Sigurdson.

Dustin Godfrey/Shutterstock

You might also like:
• Average rent in Vancouver has undergone a drastic shift since 2023
• Fall gets a head start in Metro Vancouver with wet weather on the way
• How to protect yourself from catalytic converter theft in Metro Vancouver

What was the timeline for the eviction?

YW lived in the unit at 1203–1238 Seymour St. in Vancouver for over two years before receiving a two-month notice to end their tenancy for the landlord’s use in summer 2023. Their approximate monthly rent was $1,725.50.

ZF issued four notices to end tenancy that summer, with each noting that her daughter, MC, would be occupying the suite.

The tenant disputed the notice to end tenancy with the RTB, with an initial hearing set for Oct. 27, 2023. However, after YW secured alternate housing, he vacated the rental unit the day before the hearing and withdrew his filed application for dispute resolution.

“After YW vacated, repairs, repainting and cleaning were required in the Rental Unit,” explained the Reasons for Judgement. “MC was not able to reside there until November 10, 2023.

“MC moved to Korea on April 20, 2024, for an internship as part of her education. She later advised her mother she had been admitted to the University of Victoria and would reside in Victoria starting in September 2024.”

Did the landlord’s daughter live in the suite long enough?

YW applied to the RTB for a monetary order for compensation in the fall of 2024, alleging that the landlord had failed to fulfill the stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy.

After two hearings via conference call in December 2024 and January 2025, the arbitrator ruled in favour of the tenant and granted a monetary order equivalent to 12 months’ rent, totalling $20,806.

The RTB arbitrator’s decision found that ZF admitted that MC’s five-month residency in the unit did not fulfill the RTA requirements and attempted to argue on the basis of extenuating circumstances.

1238 Seymour St., Vancouver (Google Maps)

“I find that (MC) changed her mind about occupying the rental unit in January 2024, when she applied to and accepted the internship in Korea,” wrote the arbitrator. “It cannot be said that this could not be anticipated or was outside her control, as she applied for the internship herself after the tenancy ended. I find that she did not occupy the rental unit as of April 10, 2024.

“While it may have been reasonable to be temporarily absent from the rental unit and resume occupancy after the internship, (MC) applied to and moved away for law school immediately afterwards, again after the tenancy ended.”

According to the Reasons for Judgment, the landlord initially sought review consideration from the RTB, arguing that there was new evidence that the arbitrator was outside their jurisdiction in deciding upon the extenuating circumstances.

After RTB dismissed the application for review, ZF filed a petition for judicial review in the B.C. Supreme Court, alleging that the decision was patently unreasonable because the arbitrator made the decision based on what MC “knew or intended and when.”

The landlord also argued that the hearing was procedurally unfair, as it failed to give her a greater opportunity to participate directly, instead focusing on her daughter’s knowledge.

The judge’s decision

In the Reasons for Judgement, Justice Sigurdson wrote that they did “not agree that the process was unfair” to ZF.

“ZF attended both hearings, with an interpreter who spoke on her behalf occasionally. MC, her daughter, was a witness and also spoke on her own and MF’s behalf during the hearings.

“I do not agree with the petitioner that ZF did not have a fair opportunity to be heard or understood in the hearings before the arbitrator. There were two one-hour hearings, which appeared to be somewhat chaotic in their conduct, but which provided a fair opportunity to be heard. ZF did not speak on her own behalf throughout, but attended with a translator and her principal witness, who also made representations on her behalf.”

The B.C. Supreme Court judge also stated that the burden was on the landlord to show she faced extenuating circumstances in not fulfilling the six-month minimum residence requirement under s. 52(3) of the RTA.

“She did not persuade the arbitrator that the information she advanced, through her daughter as her primary witness, constituted such circumstances,” explained Justice Sigurdson.

“It is true the arbitrator did not expressly grapple with whose knowledge was relevant, or what degree of surprise in MC’s change of plans would give rise to an extenuating circumstance. But the arbitrator did apply the relevant provision and guideline, and drew inferences based on the information provided.”

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

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