An eviction dispute between a Vancouver landlord and tenant made it all the way to the BC Supreme Court this month, where a judge decided the Residential Tenancy Branch needed to take another look because the arbitrator was procedurally unfair.
The dispute focused on the landlord’s attempts to evict a tenant staying at a downtown Vancouver apartment. The landlord alleged many problems with the tenant, including that she covered the unit’s vents with duct tape — disrupting airflow in the building.
The tenant, on the other hand, claimed she didn’t put the duct tape there. Instead, the tenant said the landlord covered the vents.
The RTB adjudicator noted that the landlord-tenant relationship was challenging. The landlord served three eviction notices to the tenant in the fall of 2024 — one in-person, one via email and one via registered mail.
But the three notices didn’t all say the same date.
She filed a dispute on October 9 — within the 10-day deadline of the most recent eviction notice delivered by mail.
But when the RTB heard the case, the adjudicator noted she had disputed the eviction late. The RTB reasoned that by October 9, the 10-day deadline counting from the first eviction notice had passed.
The arbitrator suggested the tenant and landlord settle on a mutually convenient move-out date. They landed on November 30.
“It’s up to you,” the arbitrator said. “What would you prefer, for the landlord to provide you the opportunity to stay until the end of the month, or if you would like a decision made where there’s a possibility that you would have to move out sooner than that?”
The tenant replied, “Well, I don’t really have a choice then, do I? I have to take the 30th November?”
She took the matter to the BC Supreme Court, arguing the RTB hearing had been unfair.
The judge agreed, saying the arbitrator mentioned two options available to her — settling on a move-out date or issuing an order of possession to the landlord, where she could be out sooner. The arbitrator neglected to mention a third option: that she could ask the arbitrator to extend the deadline for her dispute so that her October 9 filing could be valid.
“The petitioner was not aware that she had missed the deadline to file her dispute until the hearing,” the judge wrote. “The arbitrator’s statement to the petitioner that she only had two options was inaccurate.”
The judge found the tenant entered into the move-out settlement agreement under duress. That means the case will be sent back to the RTB for another hearing.