Eviction after entry notice posted on wrong door goes to BC Supreme Court
A BC Supreme Court judge ordered the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) to take another look at a case where a landlord tried to evict a tenant but placed the notice on the wrong door.
The tenant, Brittany Grace Smith, asked for a judicial review after an RTB arbitrator sided in favour of the landlord, saying she had changed her locks to prevent the landlord from entering even after the landlord gave her 24 hours’ notice that he would be entering her suite.
The landlord, Gursharan Singh Sidhu, had given the tenant 24 hours’ notice that he would be touring the suite. However, the property manager posted the notice on the neighbour’s door instead of Smith’s, according to a BC Supreme Court decision posted online last week. An email notice was also sent to an incorrect email address.
After the landlord couldn’t gain access to the suite, because Smith had added a biometric component to her lock, the landlord issued an eviction notice.
The first eviction notice listed Smith’s address incorrectly, but the second eviction notice the following month got it right. As for the reason, the landlord listed it as “tenant has refused entry to the unit after receiving more than 24 hours’ notice.”
The RTB initially sided with the landlord, but Smith appealed the decision to the Supreme Court with evidence the initial notice of entry had been posted on the wrong door.
The Supreme Court judge sided with Smith, pointing out that even if she’d changed the locks, the landlord would need to provide her notice and give her a chance to remedy the situation before issuing an eviction notice.
“There was some evidence in the hearing as to whether Ms. Smith changed the locks such that the landlord could no longer enter, or simply added an additional biometric feature that allowed her son to enter with his key but did not affect the functioning of the original key lock,” the judge wrote.
“None of the evidence in relation to the lock is relevant to the issue before the arbitrator. The landlord at no time provided Ms. Smith with written notice that she had changed the lock, as a basis for a valid notice to end tenancy.”
What’s more, the landlord had been texting Smith about arranging viewings. She’d already accommodated several, but told the landlord a specific viewing that led to the eviction notice was inconvenient because she was dealing with her ailing mother.
But text messages aren’t a form of communication recognized under BC’s tenancy laws, and refusal via text can’t be interpreted as refusing entry as the basis for an eviction.
“The arbitrator impliedly held that Ms. Smith denied the landlord entry through the text messages and that such denial was valid to found a notice to end tenancy. Such a conclusion is contrary to the express language of the legislation, and is therefore patently unreasonable,” the Supreme Court judge wrote.
In the end, the Supreme Court sent the issue back to the RTB and ordered the landlord to pay the tenant’s filing costs.
Follow Channels and Categories