Surrey Airbnb listing ‘likely’ the condo tenant was evicted from, B.C. court rules

Surrey is seen in this undated file image from CTV's Chopper 9 helicopter.

The owners of a Surrey condo have lost their bid to avoid compensating the unit’s former resident, who alleges they evicted her so they could turn her home into an Airbnb.

Cristopher and Leonida Resurreccion, along with their son Christian, entered a contract to purchase the one-bedroom unit on the 36th floor of a highrise on 100 Avenue in May 2023.

At that time, they asked the sellers to issue a two-month notice to end the tenancy of Megan Neumann, who had been living in the unit, claiming that they planned for Christian to move into the property once the sale was complete.

The dispute that arose after Neumann moved out is detailed in a B.C. Supreme Court decision issued Monday, in which Justice Sandra M. Sukstorf dismissed the Resurreccions’ petition for judicial review of a ruling by the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch.

The RTB ruling – in which an arbitrator found it was more likely than not that the homeowners had converted the property into a short-term rental listed on Airbnb, rather than having Christian occupy the space as his primary residence for at least six months, as required by provincial law at the time – requires the Resurreccions to pay Neumann $17,236, the equivalent of 12 months’ rent under her terminated lease plus a $100 filing fee.

‘Multiple buzzer access requests’

The Resurreccions argued that the RTB arbitrator had treated them unfairly during the hearing on the matter and that the decision, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, was patently unreasonable.

Sukstorf disagreed, noting that the standard of proof for RTB proceedings is the “balance of probabilities.” RTB arbitrators are not required to determine that a fact has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only that the fact in question is “more likely than not.”

Though the evidence Neumann presented to support her conclusion that the owners were advertising her former home as an Airbnb was circumstantial, it was “not insubstantial,” the judge found.

Neumann presented the RTB with screenshots of an Airbnb listing showing a unit she believed was the one she had previously occupied, along with visual comparisons of her former home and the listed unit.

“After the tenant vacated the unit, she continued receiving multiple buzzer access requests on her phone and multiple different vehicles were observed parking in the unit’s parking spot,” Sukstorf’s decision reads, summarizing another reason for Neumann’s suspicion.

The name of the Airbnb “host” associated with the listing was “Cris,” and the profile photo was of Devil’s Tower in Wyoming, which Neumann found public Facebook posts showing Cristopher and Leonida had visited during a trip earlier in the year.

The listing also appeared to have gone up shortly after Neumann moved out, and was taken down shortly after she filed her complaint with the RTB, according to the court decision.

‘A sound line of analysis’

In B.C., landlords can evict tenants if they or a close family member intend to occupy the tenant’s dwelling.

A landlord who evicts a tenant for this reason must act in good faith and must use the property for the purpose stated on the eviction notice for a set period of time – six months at the time of Neumann’s eviction, but later amended by the provincial government to one year – unless extenuating circumstances prevent them from doing so.

In this case, while the arbitrator accepted that Christian may have lived in the condo “in some capacity” after Neumann was evicted, the key question was whether the unit shown in the Airbnb listing was the same as the one the tenant had vacated, according to Sukstorf’s decision.

If the arbitrator concluded it was more likely than not that the Airbnb listing and Neumann’s former home were the same unit, then the Resurreccions would have failed to use the property for the eviction’s stated purpose for at least six months.

“The arbitrator was not required to assess each detail in isolation, and his line of reasoning made it clear that the decision was not based on any one piece of evidence,” Sukstorf’s decision reads.

“He considered the cumulative weight of evidence specific to the petitioners’ unit—including the distinctive residue markings on the window, the floral tablecloth seen in both a Facebook post and the Airbnb listing, and the timing of the listing itself, which went live shortly after the tenant vacated … While the petitioners maintained that these were coincidences, the arbitrator reasonably found that the volume of the coincidences and the specificity of the overlapping indicators met the threshold that it was more likely than not the same unit.”

The judge concluded that the arbitrator’s reasoning “reflected a sound line of analysis” and was not unreasonable.

She also rejected the Resurreccions’ suggestion that the arbitrator had shown bias against them – and thus rendered the RTB hearing procedurally unfair – by suggesting they may have staged or altered the unit for photos submitted with their response to Neumann’s complaint.

“While the comment may have been speculative, it was also made within the limited context of assessing the probative value of the petitioners’ post-tenancy photos,” Sukstorf’s decision reads.

“These photos were submitted to rebut the tenant’s evidence. However, they were taken long after the tenancy ended and had no direct link to the timeline of the alleged Airbnb rental. The arbitrator was justified in evaluating whether this late-acquired evidence was reliable, relevant, or potentially self-serving.”

In addition to dismissing the Resurreccions’ petition for judicial review, Sukstorf awarded court costs to Neumann.