The case of the missing dollar: Arbitrator’s decision found procedurally unfair after reversing burden of proof

22. February 2022 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office – Judicial review – Evidence – Burden of proof – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Landlord and tenant – Residential Tenancy Agreements – Eviction LaBrie v. Liu, [2021] B.C.J. No. 2751, 2021 BCSC 2486, British Columbia Supreme Court, December ...

Residential Tenancy Branch decision failed to adequately articulate the reasons for its decision and the matter was remitted back to the Residential Tenancy Branch

19. October 2021 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office – Residential tenancy agreements – Vacancy notices – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness Shahcheraghi v. Divangahi, [2021] B.C.J. No. 1760, 2021 BCSC 1576, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 13, 2021, K. Horsman J. The landlord/petitioner sought a ...

The Landlord/Appellant, Aarti Investments Ltd., was unsuccessful in attempting to appeal a decision of a Chambers Judge. The Chambers Judge had set aside a decision of a residential tenancy branch arbitrator, which had granted an Order of Possession to the Landlord.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office – Judicial review – Appeals – Legislative compliance – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements Aarti Investments Ltd. v. Bauman, [2019] B.C.J. No. 840, 2019 BCCA 165, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 14, 2019, P.M Willcock, R. Goepel and G. Dickson JJ.A. The Appellant/Landlord, Aarti Investments ...

This case involves judicial review of a decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch finding that a non-profit community housing guest policy was discriminatory and harmed the residents. The court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the Tribunal’s decision was reasonable.

21. August 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements PHS Community Services Society v. Swait, [2018] B.C.J. No. 958, 2018 BCSC 824, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 18, 2018, N. Sharma J. ...

Court upholds arbitrator’s eviction decision on judicial review following tenant’s failure to comply with material terms of rental agreement

17. February 2017 0
The petitioner sought judicial review of a Residential Tenancy Branch decision to dismiss her application to cancel an eviction notice served by her landlord pursuant to s. 47(1)(h) of the Residential Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002 c. 78 (the “RTA”). Section 47(1)(h) of the RTA permits a landlord to end a tenancy if the tenant has: ...

Applicant unsuccessfully applied to set aside a decision of the Rentalsman who had refused to issue a Notice to Quit on the respondent tenant due to improvements made to the property. Decision was held to be within range of acceptable outcomes and reasonable.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Residential Tenancy office – Landlord and tenant – Rules and by-laws – Conduct of tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Nethervue Park Ltd. v. MacKinnon, [2013] N.B.J. No. 21, 2013 ...

A tenant in a Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation townhouse applied for judicial review of the decision of a dispute resolution officer who found that a 10-day notice to end tenancy for unpaid rent, under Section 46(1) of the Residential Tenancy Act should be upheld with the result that the tenant would lose possession

23. October 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Residential Tenancy office – Discretion of court – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination – Vacation notices – Conduct of tenant – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Remedies – Relief from ...

A landlord (Fok) was unsuccessful on judicial review of a decision of a dispute resolution officer under the Residential Tenancy Act, which had ordered the landlords to pay compensation to their former tenants for missing jewellery, and had denied the landlords’ claim for losses associated with repair, garbage disposal and cleaning, and found against them as to whether they had a legal right to change the locks and to retake actual possession of the rental unit

28. December 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Residential Tenancy office – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Conduct of tenant – Termination – Tenant’s goods – Damages – Judicial review – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Test Fok v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Act, Dispute Resolution ...

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. ...

The Court granted a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch, which had ordered the Respondent landlord to pay $1,500 in damages to his former tenant, the petitioner. The petitioner had complained that his landlord had unlawfully disposed of his personal possessions while he was away from his apartment. The statutory obligations of the landlord under section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancy Act, in relation to abandoned goods, did not apply to the facts. The dispute resolution officer’s decision to award damages based on the irrelevant consideration of non-existent statutory breaches by the landlord, without considering the tenant’s rights as a bailor at common law, was patently unreasonable.

26. January 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Residential Tenancy office – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination – Tenant’s goods – Bailee – Damages – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Bello v. Ren, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2323, 2009 BCSC 1598, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 23, 2009, L. Fenlon J. ...