The appeal by the B.C. Housing Commission (the “Commission”) of a decision of the Supreme Court reversing an arbitrator’s decision allowing the termination of Schubach’s tenancy was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that a landlord of a complex of residential buildings was not entitled to terminate the tenancy of a tenant in one of the buildings because of acts committed in another of the buildings by a person that the tenant “permitted in or on the residential property or residential premises”.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination – Conduct of tenant – Residential premises – Definition – Residential property – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Housing Commission – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Schubach v. British Columbia (Housing Management Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2664, British Columbia Court ...

A homeowner (“Covey”) who had leased his home under a one year lease to tenants who later terminated their tenancy on the advice of their physician, applied for judicial review of two decisions of an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406. In the first decision, the arbitrator had ruled in favour of the tenants and, in the second one, the arbitrator reviewed and rejected fresh evidence that Covey brought forward in support of his position. The court dismissed Covey’s application on the basis that the decision of the arbitrator and his review of that decision were not patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Landlord and tenant – Leases – Termination – Evidence – Damages – Arbitration and award – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Covey v. St. Denis, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1795, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 22, 2003, Melnick J. Covey had rented his house to Tyrone and Rosemarie St. Denis ...

A resident (“the resident”) in a housing co-operative appealed the decision of the general membership to terminate her membership in the co-operative, and to require her to vacate the unit. The court concluded that the co-op observed the principals of natural justice in terminating the resident’s membership and that the decision to terminate the membership was supported by the facts. Although the co-op refused to listen to all of the Resident’s evidence at the hearing, the court concluded that the co-operative had been reasonable in the way they dealt with the hearing and had complied with the Co-operative Association Act, R.S.B.C. 1999, c. 28 and the rules of natural justice in coming to their decision to evict the resident.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Housing co-operatives – Governance – Membership – Termination – Judicial review – Natural justice DaCosta v. City Edge Housing Co-operative, [2003] B.C.J. No. 571, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 14, 2003, Baker J. Ms. DaCosta and her children were residents of the City Edge Housing Co-operative (“the Co-op”). Ms. DaCosta was in a ...