A landlord who evicted four tenants from his East Vancouver home for a demolition that still hasn’t happened, years after the fact, must pay them nearly $43,000 in combined compensation.
An arbitrator from B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Branch ordered Kapil Malik to compensate his former tenants in February 2024, but the landlord fought the decision in B.C. Supreme Court.
In a ruling issued this week, Justice Michael Tammen dismissed Malik’s case, calling the circumstances of the dispute “extremely straightforward.”
“The petitioner did not demolish the property,” Tammen wrote. “Instead, he rented to new tenants.”
The eviction
The court heard Malik served his tenants Bryan Jacobs, Joey Thall, Max Abel and Karina Kunzova with four-month eviction notices in October 2021, telling them his intention was to demolish and redevelop the property.
Jacobs and Thall were living in the home’s basement at the time, paying $1,383 per month in rent, while Abel and Kunzova were living on the main floor, paying $2,200 per month.
The tenants complied and moved out the next year – only to learn the home had been rented out again by May 2022.
They filed a dispute with the RTB seeking the equivalent of 12 months’ rent, as allowed under the Residential Tenancy Act for some wrongful evictions, and the arbitrator who reviewed their case found in their favour, ordering Malik to pay $15,596 to Jacobs and Thall and $26,400 to Abel and Kunzova.
“Based on the evidence before me, the testimony of the parties, and on a balance of probabilities, I find that the tenants have established their claim for compensation,” the arbitrator wrote. “The landlord did not accomplish the stated purpose for ending the tenancy within a reasonable period.”
Landlord’s defence
Malik testified that he and his wife are estranged, and that she initiated divorce proceedings against him in December 2021, not long after he provided the tenants with their eviction notices.
He told the court his wife later sought a certificate of pending litigation on the rental home in November 2022, which he blamed for halting the redevelopment plans.
But Tammen noted the landlord had never actually obtained a demolition permit to begin with – which is a requirement for carrying out these kinds of evictions under the RTA.
Section 49(6)(a) allows a landlord to end a tenancy for a pending demolition, but only provided they have “all the necessary permits and approvals required by law,” and intend “in good faith” to follow through with the plan.
More than six months passed between Malik’s tenants moving out and his wife filing her CPL, Tammen added.
“The arbitrator found that the petitioner had sufficient time within that interval ‘to demolish the residential property if he had done his due diligence,‘” the judge wrote. “That finding is unassailable.”
Arbitrator’s error
Malik also argued the RTB decision against him was flawed because the arbitrator made repeated reference to a six-month deadline for completing the demolition.
There is no such requirement under the Residential Tenancy Act, which only states that demolitions used to justify evictions must be carried out within a “reasonable period,” barring any extenuating circumstances.
“The repeated references to six months are confusing, and clearly erroneous, but, in my view, they do not render the decision as a whole patently unreasonable,” Tammen wrote.
“This was not a case where, for instance, the demolition was completed more than six months after the effective date of notice. The demolition was never completed. Thus, subject to persuading the arbitrator there were extenuating circumstances, the petitioner was liable to pay compensation.”
Tammen dismissed Malik’s case, and awarded costs to his former tenants.
