A 73 -year -old tenant has won a battle in the BC Supreme Court to cancel an order to evict her from her two bedroom rental apartment.
Janet Fraser challenged two decisions of the BC Residential Tenure Branch (RTB) that said he incorrectly accepted the “good faith” of his lessor and did not take into account the “possibility of a dishonest hidden purpose.”
Fraser rent an apartment in an eight -units rental building with its 69 -year -old Jerry, who is deaf and suffers from stage 4 cancer and multiple sclerosis, according to the failure.
The ruling does not affirm in which city the city lives.
She has lived in the apartment for more than 20 years and pays $ 780 for rent, which Judge Sandra Sukstorf described “significantly below the market.”
“Losing this affordable and long data housing would cause severe difficulties both for Mrs. Fraser and her partner,” Sukstorf said in her August 28 decision.
Sukstorf agreed that the RTB referee could not evaluate the good faith of the lessor significantly and did not get involved with “key contradictory evidence.”
Eviction warnings
The couple’s rental challenges began after the apartment building was sold to a new corporate owner, 1392383 a. C. LTD.
In October 2023, the owner gave Fraser a notice of eviction for demolition and conversion of the building.
Fraser tried to negotiate a rental increase with the owner in exchange for leaving the eviction, but the owner’s agent refused, “stating that he could rent the unit for $ 1,500 to $ 2,000 more than he was paying,” according to the judge’s decision.
The notice was finally canceled because the owner’s numbered company lacked a digit.
While the eviction process was happening, an important water leak caused extensive damage to Fraser’s apartment, which resulted in a large hole in the roof that was “covered only by a canvas” and not fixed, Sukstorf said in his failure.
A month later, the owner gave Fraser a second warning to end the lease, saying that the apartment would become a caregiver unit.
The owner said that RTB Fraser’s apartment was the only available unit, and the only one suitable for a caretaker due to its location in the back of the building with direct exterior access.
The owner’s agent, named Mr. Khela in the decision, declared that the owner intended to retain the existing property administration company and at the same time appoint the caregiver on the site.
“However, the representative of the Property Administration Company testified [at the RTB] That, in their experience, had never achieved a building that also had a living caregiver, “said Sukstorf.
Fraser played the eviction notice twice, but finally succeeded.
Referee RTB granted the owner an “order of possession” and ordered Fraser to leave the unit before September 30, 2024.
The referee said: “Although it may not seem fair to the tenant or the tenant defender, the law allows an owner to end a lease in certain situations … I am satisfied that the owner has established good faith to achieve the declared purpose to end the rent.”
‘Questionable eviction practices’
But Sukstorf said that the referee’s decision was “obviously unreasonable” and could not explain how the proof of good faith was fulfilled.
Sukstorf said that the court does not determine good faith, but considers whether the referee reasonably applied the correct legal evidence.
When it comes to showing good faith, Sukstorf said: “Any inappropriate reason can invalidate the notice [to end tenancy]”And he added the load falls to the owner to establish that the notice was issued in good faith.
Sukstorf said Fraser showed the referee other three eviction notices, each citing the use of the family, which had recently been emitted to the neighbors in their building.
Two of the notices listed the owner as Harman Basutta, who said the judge does not appear in the corporate registry of the numbered company that the building owns. A third notice listed Harpreet Khela as owner.
But the judge pointed out that only an individual owner or a family corporation, not a numbered company, can give a personal occupation notice.
“While these notices were not directly in question in this procedure, they were significant because they suggested a broader pattern of questionable eviction practices aimed at eliminating tenants who paid rent under the market,” said Sukstorf.
“The referee should have considered this evidence to evaluate the credibility of the owner.”
Sukstorf said that referee RTB did not consider whether the owner had a hidden reason to decide to use a living caregiver or choose the Fraser’s unit instead of another.
The judge pointed out how another unit in the “identical” building to Fraser’s was also unemployed, and “there was no explanation of why this unit could not be used for a caregiver” or why Fraser could not have moved to that unit.
The judge annuls RTB decisions
Sukstorf said Fraser showed evidence that “he directly raised the possibility of a dishonest or hidden purpose” and “said a pattern of inconsistent and changing explanations of why he needed to vacate the unity.”
She said the referee has the greatest duty to provide transparent reasons due to the serious impact that an eviction would have on a vulnerable tenant.
“The referee’s reasons do not demonstrate that the balance and reasoning required took place.”
The judge set aside the referee’s decisions and sent the issue back to the RTB for a new hearing with a different decision maker.
