A senior who has lived in the same apartment for more than 20 years has won the right to stay at least a little longer, after the B.C. Supreme Court overturned her eviction last week. Janet Fraser petitioned the court for a judicial review of the Residential Tenancy Branch’s decisions allowing her landlord – a numbered company – to evict her and bring in a live-in caretaker for the building, who would occupy her unit. The court decision does not specify where the building is located, but it says the 73-year-old tenant pays $780 a month in rent, which is “significantly below-market,” and which Fraser believes is “the lowest in the building.” Her landlord, 1392383 B.C. Ltd., bought the building in October 2023 and issued her a notice to end tenancy for demolition and conversion of the rental unit “shortly after the purchase,” according to the court decision, which was published online Friday. This first eviction notice was later cancelled by the RTB because it misstated the landlord’s name. The decision indicates a digit was missing from the company’s number. In January 2024, there was a “major water leak” in the building, which caused significant damage to Fraser’s unit, including “a large hole in the ceiling” that remained “covered only by a tarp” at the time the court began hearing the judicial review. In late February 2024, the landlord issued a second eviction notice. Again, the stated reason for the eviction was for “demolition or conversion of a rental unit,” but this time it also specified that the unit would be converted to house a caretaker for the building. Fraser again challenged the eviction notice at the RTB, but she was unsuccessful. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sandra M. Sukstorf quotes from the arbitrator’s decision in her ruling: “Although it may not seem fair to the tenant or the tenant’s advocate, the law permits a landlord to end a tendency in certain situations. Considering the evidence in the testimony, I am satisfied that the landlord has established good faith to accomplish the stated purpose for ending the tenancy.” In her judicial review decision, Sukstorf found the RTB arbitrator’s reasoning insufficient. The judge noted that finding the landlord had a sincere intention to employ a live-in caretaker was only the first part of a two-part legal test for the arbitrator to apply. The second consideration, according to the judge, was whether the landlord had an “ulterior motive” for seeking to evict Fraser. The possibility of an ulterior motive was not discussed in the RTB arbitrator’s reasons, according to Sukstorf. “The concern was not abstract,” her decision reads. “Ms. Fraser advanced evidence that directly raised the possibility of a dishonest or ulterior purpose. She pointed to a pattern of inconsistent and shifting explanations for why she needed to vacate the unit, including multiple attempts to evict her based on required repairs, followed by the inconsistent assertion, without any intervening change in circumstances, that the unit would instead be used to house a caretaker immediately.” The decision also notes that Fraser submitted three other eviction notices that had been received by other residents of the building. All three of the notices were for “family use,” according to the decision. Two of them listed the landlord as a person whose name does not appear in the corporate registry for the numbered company, and Fraser told the court all three were deemed invalid because corporate landlords cannot issue evictions for family use, and such evictions are not allowed in buildings with more than five units. “While these notices were not directly at issue in this proceeding, they were significant because they suggested a broader pattern of questionable eviction practices aimed at removing tenants paying below-market rent,” Sukstorf’s decision reads. “The arbitrator ought to have considered this evidence in assessing the landlord’s credibility, particularly given that the onus rested with the landlord to establish that the second notice was issued in good faith. The failure to do so undermines confidence in the arbitrator’s conclusion.” Sukstorf found the RTB arbitrator had failed to address “core contradictions in the evidence, to consider reasonable alternatives” and “to assess the possibility of mixed motives.” “In the absence of meaningful engagement with these issues and the relevant evidence, I find that the underlying decision cannot be sustained and is patently unreasonable,” the judge’s decision reads. Accordingly, Sukstorf set aside the arbitrator’s decision and remitted the matter to the RTB for a new hearing with a different arbitrator.
