Articles

Vancouver Judge Reverses Rent Reimbursement to Evicted Tenants

blog author avatar

Published by:

David Johnson

blog reviewer avatar

Reviewed by:

Alistair Vigier

Last Modified: 2023-06-21

In a dramatic turn of events, the British Columbia Supreme Court has reversed a controversial decision originally delivered by the Residential Tenancy Branch, deriding it as irrationally inconsistent.

The epicentre of this quarrel was a rather typical dining area nestled within an upstairs unit located in North Vancouver, which had become the tempestuous stage for an acrimonious rent-related dispute.

A North Vancouver couple had been forced by the Tenancy Branch to reimburse their former renters a hefty sum of $34,000, an amount tantamount to a full year’s rent.

The crux of this issue lay within the eviction notice’s signature – not inked by the couple, but by their son, Milad Hefzi, leading the Branch to dub him the presumptive landlord. However, the court in Vancouver would later revoke this judgment.

Blog Photo

North Vancouver renters

The Tenancy Tribunal’s first verdict sided in favour of the North Vancouver renters, bestowing upon them a significant financial recompense following their expulsion. This eviction was judged to be unlawful, given that the supposed landlord – Hefzi – who authorized the eviction, did not then take up residence in the property as would be customary.

Hefzi tried to justify his action, contending that he merely represented his parents during the eviction notice signing as they struggled with English. He rationalized his role as an acting proxy, a detail made evident when he inscribed his signature beside the title “landlord/agent” on the eviction document.

It’s worth noting that this instance is merely one of a long line of landlord-renter squabbles leading to property owners paying out enormous sums of money. This is primarily a repercussion of recent reforms to tenancy laws mandating that renters should be awarded a sum equal to a full year’s rent in instances of unlawful eviction.

The Vancouver Court

It’s crucial to remember that judgements given by the Residential Tenancy Branch do not hold the final say. They can, and often are, disputed in the B.C. Supreme Court, albeit this process can be time-consuming, spanning several months and accruing significant legal expenses.

In the case at hand, the tenancy arbitrator had earlier concluded that Hefzi had violated the Residential Tenancy Act by signing a 2021 eviction notice as a landlord while failing to meet the associated stipulations.

As per the Act, an eviction notice expressing the landlord’s intent to reside in the property requires the landlord, their partner, or child to inhabit the rental unit.

After his request for a review of the ruling by the Branch was dismissed, Hefzi pursued justice through the courts. Judge Chan clarified in her judgement that for a tribunal’s decision to be overturned, it would have to be “flagrantly, unambiguously, and patently unreasonable” or verge on the preposterous.

The property as landlords

Judge Chan recognized that the Act generally categorized a landlord as any individual letting out a unit. It sharpened this definition when compensation for unlawful eviction came into play. This narrower interpretation only recognized owners with at least a 50% stake in the property as landlords.

In her view, the arbitrator’s ruling had been excessively unreasonable. She directed the case back to the Branch for an exhaustive reassessment, though no date has been set for this yet.

The Louws now have 60 days to contest this Supreme Court verdict at the Court of Appeal. However, the likelihood of this seems slim given their lawyer’s view on the clear interpretation of the Act’s landlord definition by the judge.

Joey Doyle, their legal counsel, elucidated that they were treading unexplored territory as there had been no prior benchmark for this part of the Act. He expressed optimism that this ruling could provide valuable guidance for future cases.

RELATED POSTS

    No related posts found.