Landlord-tenant dispute: British Columbia landlord ordered to pay former tenant $16,000

A landlord in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland who evicted a long-time tenant only to rent out the same apartment for more rent months later has been ordered to pay him $16,480 in compensation.

Tenant Nicholas Hill had been living in the one-bedroom unit above the garage of a private home in South Surrey for nearly six years when Fenglian Qi purchased the property in March 2021, according to the agency. British Columbia Supreme Court decision issued earlier in October.

Qi evicted Hill, who was then paying $1,365 a month in rent, with a message through her realtor indicating that close relatives would be moving into the apartment, as allowed under the provincial Tenancy Act.

But under the RTA, a family member must occupy the apartment for at least six months after the landlord has exercised eviction on the property. The court heard that just three months after Hill vacated Qi’s apartment in June 2021, she began renting the apartment to a new tenant – this time for $1,800 a month.

“Even from the landlord’s testimony, it is clear that the apartments were not used for their stated purpose for six months,” Judge Fritz Verhoeven wrote in his October 7 reasons.

A judgment requiring Qi to pay his former tenant $16,480—12 months of his previous rent plus a $100 filing fee for the dispute—was issued by the Tenancy Division in April 2023, but the landlord resisted, first requesting a review of the decision through judge and then by filing a petition to have it overturned in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

In denying the motion, Verhoeven noted that Hill was also the subject of a separate “wrongful proceeding” brought by the homeowner in provincial court, as well as a civil claim accusing him of fraud, for which Qi sought $48,000 in damages from him.

“The action was later discontinued,” Verhoeven wrote.

Rental listed on Craigslist

In his case before the Residential Rental Division, Hill submitted a series of ads on Craigslist showing his former home for rent on June 14, 2021, just 11 days after Qi took possession of the property.

He also sent text messages and emails from his friends who responded to advertisements and asked about the availability of the device.

Throughout the trial, Qi maintained that her intention was for her adult daughter to move into the room above the garage, and she did so until Qi’s husband collapsed on June 13.

After the accident, the homeowner said, her daughter moved into the main home to help care for her father because he was “unable to live independently,” according to the arbitrator’s ruling. Qi argued that her husband’s condition constituted “mitigating circumstances” under the law that could exempt a landlord from normal landlord eviction requirements.

However, the arbitrator disagreed, writing in the decision that “the defendant’s daughter can still care for her father while living in the same house without having to move to another part of the house and rent a rental apartment for a higher rent. »

The arbitrator also questioned the timing of Qi’s husband’s fall, noting that the only medical records presented by the family at the hearing were dated July 31. Qi later presented additional evidence – a letter from her husband confirming he fell on June 13 – while arguing for a review of the decision.

New landlord evidence

In making her case to the judge, Qi also provided a rental agreement signed on July 7, 2021, showing that her new tenant only began living in the unit in September. This was contrary to one finding by the arbitrator, who concluded, based on Craigslist posts, text messages, emails and other materials presented at the Tenancy Division’s initial hearing, that the tenant likely moved in sometime in June or shortly thereafter.

Qi argued that the documents constituted “new and important evidence that was not available” at the time of the hearing, which could have warranted a review of the decision, but the judge disagreed and denied her request.

Verhoeven also refused to overturn the arbitrator’s decision and order a new hearing, finding that the arguments were “compelling, clear and entirely rational.”

“It does not matter whether the new tenant occupied the unit in June, July or only in September,” the judge wrote.

“This decision falls far short of anything that could be described as ‘manifestly unreasonable’ and therefore cannot be interfered with.”