The court dismissed the petitioner’s application for failure to establish that the dispute resolution officer’s (“the DRO”) decisions should be quashed. The court found that the DRO set out the findings of facts and principal evidence in its decisions and that the decisions were not patently unreasonable. Accordingly, the respondents were entitled to general damages, damages for loss of property and aggravated damages.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Residential Tenancy office – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Vacation notices – Damages – Aggravated damages – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Sahota v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Act, Dispute Resolution Officer), [2010] B.C.J. ...