Landlord must pay tenant $38K over wrongful eviction, B.C. court rules

The home at 602 St. Andrew's Rd. in West Vancouver is seen in this 2019 photo from BC Assessment's website (bcassessment.ca)

A West Vancouver landlord who was ordered to pay his former tenant more than $38,000 has lost his bid to have the award overturned in B.C. Supreme Court.

Davood Nekoi-Panah gave his former tenant Bahador Mohajerrey a two-month notice to end tenancy for landlord’s use in March 2024, according to Justice Anita Chan’s decision in the case, which was issued Wednesday.

While the eviction notice called for the tenancy to end in May 2024, Mohajerrey found a new home and moved out at the end of March.

Under B.C. law, a landlord can evict a tenant if they or a close family member intend, in good faith, to occupy the rental unit. Once the tenant is moved out, the landlord must complete the stated purpose of the eviction within a reasonable amount of time, and whoever moves in—whether the landlord or a family member—must occupy the space for a minimum amount of time.

At the time of Mohajerrey’s eviction, the minimum period was six months. The B.C. government has since extended it to 12 months.

Landlords who fail to complete the purpose of the eviction within a reasonable period or fail to reside in the property for the minimum time required can be ordered by the Residential Tenancy Branch to compensate their former tenants, which is what happened in this case.

Mohajerrey took Nekoi-Panah to the RTB in early 2025, alleging that the landlord had failed to occupy the suite for six months after he moved out. The RTB arbitrator who heard the case agreed and ordered Nekoi-Panah to pay Mohajerrey $38,596, representing 12 months of the tenant’s former rent, plus the $100 RTB filing fee.

Nekoi-Panah appealed, first asking the RTB for a reconsideration hearing and then petitioning the B.C. Supreme Court for a judicial review of the branch’s decisions, which is how Chan became involved in the case.

Landlord didn’t attend hearing

The landlord raised two issues in the judicial review petition. First, he argued that the RTB arbitrator should have found that his failure to attend a hearing in February 2025 was due to circumstances beyond his control, and that the hearing was procedurally unfair because it continued in his absence. Second, he argued that the RTB’s conclusion that he had not provided sufficient evidence to prove he occupied the residence for six months was “patently unreasonable.”

Chan rejected both of these arguments.

On the question of Nekoi-Panah’s non-attendance at the February hearing, the judge found the RTB arbitrator had considered the medical note the landlord provided and found it lacking.

“The arbitrator found the medical note unpersuasive, with no address or phone number on the letterhead,” Chan’s decision reads.

“The arbitrator observed the note was not signed by an individual who identified herself as a medical doctor. These observations are accurate. Further, the note did not say the landlord was outside of Canada at the time of the hearing or had suffered a medical emergency. The note stated it was ‘medically unadvisable’ for the landlord to participate on the date of the hearing. The arbitrator found the note did not provide an explanation for why the landlord could not have made other arrangements for someone to attend the hearing on his behalf. In my view, these findings were open to the arbitrator on the evidence.”

Property sold after tenant moved out

Likewise, the judge found the arbitrator’s consideration of evidence about how long Nekoi-Panah occupied the rental unit after the eviction to have been reasonable.

As evidence, the landlord had submitted a contract of purchase and sale dated March 20, 2024, with a completion date of April 29, 2024. The document had an addendum that reduced the purchase price by $10,000 and provided that Nekoi-Panah would rent the suite on the lower level in which Mohajerrey had lived, according to the decision.

BC Assessment’s listing for the property at 602 St. Andrew’s Rd. in West Vancouver shows it sold for $2,890,000 in March 2024.

In addition to the sale agreement, Nekoi-Panah submitted a letter from his Realtor stating that he had rented the unit back from the new owner from May 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2024, for $3,500 a month. He also submitted five e-transfer receipts for that amount.

The arbitrator found this evidence insufficient to prove that Nekoi-Panah actually lived in the unit, a determination that was open to him to make, according to Chan’s decision.

“It was for the arbitrator, with expertise in making determinations of residency, to decide if the landlord had proven he did in fact occupy the rental unit,” the decision reads.

“It is noted that the landlord did not present any evidence of utility bills in his name at that address, mail addressed to him at that location, deliveries being made to him at that address, or any identification documents such as a driver’s licence or passport with that address. The arbitrator’s finding was open to him on the evidence and not patently unreasonable.”

Chan dismissed Nekoi-Panah’s judicial review petition, leaving the RTB award to Mohajerrey intact.

The judge also noted that Nekoi-Panah’s decision to sell the property shortly after Mohajerrey moved out may have rendered all of the other arguments in the case moot.

“After the property was sold to the new purchaser on May 1, 2024, it is arguable whether the landlord still qualified as a landlord pursuant to (the Residential Tenancy Act)," the decision reads.

“As this issue was not argued before the arbitrator or before this court, I will say no more about it.”