B.C. Supreme Court sets aside 'illogical' RTB decision on landlord's use eviction

This stock image shows a door with an eviction notice on it. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. tenant who alleges his landlord evicted him in bad faith will get a new chance to argue his case before the Residential Tenancy Branch, after a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled in his favour in a recent decision.

Kuljit Singh Mangat moved out of his home at the end of February 2023 after receiving an eviction notice from his landlord, Sarabjit Singh Dhindsa, according to the court decision, which was issued last month but published online earlier this week.

Dhindsa's stated reason for the eviction was that he intended to use the rental unit for his own "personal use."

Mangat told the court he discovered that Dhindsa had not used the property for personal use, but rather had rented it out to a new tenant.

In B.C., landlords can evict tenants without cause if they or a close family member intend to move into the rental unit themselves. The landlord must provide a notice to end tenancy using the form prescribed by the Residential Tenancy Branch, and must occupy the unit for a minimum period of time – which the government increased to 12 months last year – before renting it out again.

Landlords who fail to use their properties for the purpose stated in the eviction notice can be ordered to compensate their former tenants with 12 months' worth of their former rent.

Mangat took Dhindsa to the RTB in hopes of getting such compensation, but his case was dismissed.

The RTB arbitrator's reasoning for dismissing the case is quoted in the Supreme Court decision.

"I find the landlord did not serve a formal notice under section 49 of the (Residential Tenancy) Act to the tenant," it reads. "The tenant was not obligated to vacate the rental unit based on the written notice he uploaded in his evidence. As a formal section 49 notice was not served on the tenant, the tenant is not eligible to receive the 12 months compensation contemplated under section 51 of the act."

Wrong form used

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Elwood considered Mangat's request for judicial review of the RTB decision.

The judge concluded that the arbitrator's decision was "patently unreasonable," "illogical" and "contrary to the legislative intent" behind the Residential Tenancy Act.

Elwood noted that Dhindsa had served Mangat with a document labelled "Notice to Quit," which did not follow the standardized form that the RTB prescribes for eviction notices for landlord's personal use.

"In this case, the landlord did not comply with the RTB," Elwood's decision reads.

"Instead, the landlord served the tenant with his own form of notice that said the tenant needed to vacate the rental property for the landlord's personal use. The notice delivered by the landlord included their signature, the date on which notice was given, the address of the rental unit, the effective date of the notice, and the grounds for ending the tenancy."

By denying Mangat's application for compensation on the basis that Dhindsa had used the wrong form, the RTB arbitrator was essentially punishing the tenant for the landlord's failings, Elwood concluded.

"It is simply illogical to turn the requirement for landlords to use prescribed forms with information intended to assist tenants to understand their rights into a reason to dismiss an application by a tenant for compensation," the decision reads.

"It was patently unreasonable for the arbitrator in this case to deny the tenant recourse when the tenant moved out in accordance with the eviction notice from the landlord. It was the landlord's own non compliance with the statute that gave rise to the lack of what the arbitrator referred to as formal notice. It was patently unreasonable to dismiss the tenant's claim because the landlord failed to comply with the RTA."

Despite finding in Mangat's favour, however, Elwood did not award the former tenant compensation. Instead, the judge quashed the RTB decision and sent the matter back to the RTB for a new hearing on the merits of Mangat's case.

In such a hearing, the RTB must consider the eviction notice Mangat received to be valid for the purposes of determining whether he's entitled to compensation.