A landlord who was ordered to pay $26,500 to the renters he evicted has failed to convince a B.C. judge the decision should be overturned. In 2022, Nirmal Singh Sandhu served the tenants of a home in Surrey with a two-month notice to end tenancy—requiring them to vacate on the grounds that he or a spouse would be moving into the rental unit, according to a recent decision in B.C. Supreme Court. At the time, the province required a landlord to move in and remain in the unit for at least six months after an eviction. That timeframe has since been extended to 12 months. The tenants filed a dispute with the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch, arguing the landlord “failed to accomplish the stated purpose” of the eviction, according to the decision. In disputes of so-called landlord’s use evictions, a landlord has the burden of convincing an arbitrator that it is more likely than not they moved into the unit and lived there for the required amount of time. If the landlord fails to do so, a penalty equivalent to 12 months’ rent can be ordered. Sandhu’s evidence comprised 97 pages, including three sworn affidavits, photographs of his and his family in the house, and Amazon delivery records, the decision said. The arbitrator found the evidence in the case was insufficient, noting the affidavits were from people who had visited the property after the six-month period. “I placed little weight on the photographs and the Amazon orders as I do not find them to be persuasive to support the conclusion of the landlord’s occupancy of the unit,” the judge’s decision said, quoting the arbitrator. Sandhu sought a judicial review, arguing the previous decision was “patently unreasonable” because the arbitrator “improperly disregarded” the affidavit evidence, according to the B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The judge found the arbitrator was entitled to “set aside” the affidavit evidence on the grounds that it came from people who were at the property “later, some much later.” Sandhu also argued the arbitrator had “failed to give appropriate consideration to photographic evidence and documentary proof,” according to the decision. Again, the judge found the arbitrator was entitled to make a decision to “attribute little weight” to the photos and Amazon delivery records. “It is not the role of this court to reweigh the evidence. Rather, it is to determine, on the basis of the reasons given, read in light of the record, whether the decision is clearly irrational or openly, evidently unreasonable or borders on the absurd,” Justine Tina Dion wrote. “In my view, the decision is none of these. The decision is adequate and the reasons are sufficient.” The application for review was dismissed, leaving the landlord on the hook to pay the penalty.
