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 ...

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.

27. July 2010 0
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. ...