A B.C. Supreme Court justice has taken the unusual step of ordering Tofino tenants to vacate their home after overturning a flawed decision of the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch. In a decision issued last week and published online Monday, Justice Karrie A. Wolfe ruled that the RTB arbitrator had failed to consider or misapprehended the landlord’s evidence for attempting to evict long-term tenants Marianne Boom and Alwyn Cox. The landlord, Tod-Hackett Group Ltd., owns the triplex on Main Street in Tofino where Boom and Cox have resided in one of the units since December 2020. The company is a “family corporation” owned by Timothy Hackett and his close family members. In addition to owning the rental building, it owns and operates Long Beach Lodge Resort. The eviction notice According to Wolfe’s decision, Hackett decided in late 2024 that he wanted to “semi-retire” and pass the responsibility for operating the lodge to his stepdaughter. Neither Hackett nor his stepdaughter live in Tofino. In the past, he has stayed at the lodge when visiting the district, the decision notes. “Mr. Hackett decided he wished to take back the rental unit occupied by the tenants to use it as a home for himself when staying in Tofino, for his stepdaughter while she was working at the resort and for his close family members when visiting,” the decision reads. Hackett asked Boom and Cox to vacate the unit, but the tenants declined to do so, according to the decision. He and his stepdaughter offered to reimburse the tenants for three months’ rent if they agreed to a specified move-out date, first in May 2025 and later in September of that year, but each time, Boom and Cox maintained their desire to remain in their home. In late March 2025, after weeks of email correspondence with the tenants, Hackett issued a four-month notice to end tenancy for landlord’s use of property. The stated reason for the eviction notice, as reproduced in the court decision, was: “The rental unit will be occupied by the landlord or the landlord’s close family member (parent, spouse or child; or the parent or child of that individual’s spouse), and intends in good faith to occupy the rental unit for at least 12 months.” Cox and Boom challenged the eviction notice at the RTB, arguing that the landlord was acting in bad faith and misrepresenting its intent to occupy the unit. The RTB arbitrator who heard the case agreed with the tenants, cancelling the eviction notice and ordering the landlord to pay their $100 filing fee. Hackett and his company petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court for judicial review of that decision, which is how Wolfe became involved in the case. ‘Makes no rational sense’ The judge found the RTB arbitrator had made two errors that rendered the decision “patently unreasonable.” First, and “most critically,” according to Wolfe’s decision, the arbitrator ruled there was an “absence of evidence that the landlord and their stepdaughter will occupy the unit.” “This is a central component of the arbitrator’s determination,” the decision reads. “But on the face of the decision, the arbitrator’s statement that there is ‘an absence of evidence’ on this point makes no rational sense at all.” The decision goes on to note that earlier in the arbitrator’s own reasons, they referenced the landlord’s testimony about his and his stepdaughter’s intentions to occupy the unit. “On its face, the decision is clear that there was evidence that Mr. Hackett and his stepdaughter would occupy the unit," Wolfe’s decision reads. “I accept that it would have been open to the arbitrator to consider and reject the evidence of Mr. Hackett’s intentions that was presented for purposes of the dispute resolution hearing. But there is no indication in the decision that that is what occurred. Instead, the arbitrator makes a bold statement that there is an ‘absence of evidence’ about the landlord’s intentions. The decision itself and the record of proceedings do not in any way support the arbitrator’s statement as accurate.” Wolfe further concluded that the arbitrator had misapprehended the evidence about Hackett’s intentions, accepting the tenants’ suggestion that he had provided changing reasons about why the eviction was necessary. Boom was an employee of the lodge until she left the company in early 2025, according to the decision. At one point in his correspondence with her, Hackett explained that the company had always viewed the triplex where Boom and Cox resided as “employee housing,” rather than market housing. Wolfe found the arbitrator had interpreted this statement as contradicting the landlord’s stated intentions for use of the property, a conclusion the judge found to be inadequately explained in the RTB decision. “Contrary to the meaning the arbitrator appears to have given those sentences, Mr. Hackett does not state that the intention is to continue using the rental unit as staff housing," the decision reads. “In fact, in the very next sentence of the email (which is not lengthy), Mr. Hackett specifically states that the tenants’ ‘current rental situation’ (which I understand to be a reference to the unit as staff housing), ‘has nothing to do with us asking you to vacate, it is because we have another use for the suite.’ The arbitrator fails to acknowledge the existence of this statement.” Having concluded the RTB decision was patently unreasonable, Wolfe determined a victory for the landlord would be inevitable if the matter were remitted RTB for reconsideration. Noting the 14 months that had already passed since the eviction notice was issued, and citing a desire to avoid further delay and expense for the system and the parties, the judge opted to substitute her own ruling for the RTB’s. Wolfe ordered Boom and Cox to vacate the property within 60 days. She also ordered them to pay their landlord’s court costs.
