B.C. landlords who sold a rental property so they could purchase their “dream home” failed to convince a judge that they should be off the hook for compensating the tenants they evicted, according to a recent decision.
Tajinder Lalli and Salveen Lalli sought a judicial review of a decision by the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch in which they were ordered to pay the former renters $29,500 as compensation for wrongful eviction.
A two-month notice of eviction was issued to the tenants in November of 2022 with the stated purpose that the “rental unit will be occupied by the landlord or the landlord’s spouse,” Justice Ardith Walkem’s decision on the review said.
In cases like this, a landlord is required to move into the property within a “reasonable period” and occupy it for at least six months. If that does not happen, the evicted tenants can claim compensation equivalent to 12 months’ rent, the judgment explained.
With a move-in date of Feb. 1, 2023, the Lallis would have been required to live in the unit until Aug. 1, 2023.
In this case, the Lallis did not dispute that they listed and sold the home before the six months were up. They also did not dispute that the new owners of the property moved in on July 29, 2023 – days shy of the deadline.
They did, however, argue there were “extenuating circumstances” at play.
B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act does indicate that a landlord can be “excused” from the requirement to compensate evicted tenants but the RTB found the Lallis’ situation – that they wanted to move into their “dream home” – did not qualify.
“I find the decision to purchase and occupy a dream home was within the landlords’ control and is not an extenuating circumstance,” the judge’s decision said, quoting the RTB arbitrator.
The Lallis sought a review of the decision on a number of grounds, including that the decision was unreasonable, the process was unfair and the reasons were inadequate.
First, they argued that the arbitrator didn’t sufficiently consider the issue of extenuating circumstances and therefore “made a determination on whether such circumstances exist, without properly exploring such circumstances and examining the number of possible circumstances.”
The judge noted that the burden of proving extenuating circumstances is the landlord’s and that the arbitrator properly considered the Lallis’ evidence on the matter.
“The arbitrator did consider the extenuating circumstances presented by the landlords. The arbitrator simply did not find the unanticipated purchase of the landlords’ dream home to amount to an extenuating circumstance,” Walkem wrote.
The landlords also argued that the arbitrator focused the hearing too narrowly on the issue of whether the Lallis occupied the property for six months, and that the proceedings were unfair because they were not given the opportunity to “provide as much information as possible and respond to any questions that were of central importance.”
Again, Walkem rejected their argument – finding the arbitrator was only obligated to consider the evidence presented and was not required to “make further searching inquiries.”
The Lallis’ final argument was that the RTB’s reasons for decision provided “no clarity on how and why” the arbitrator came to their conclusions. Walkem conceded that the decision was “short,” but found the “issue before the arbitrator was straightforward.”
The Lallis’ petition for judicial review was dismissed and costs were awarded to the former tenants.
