[Great68]

So BC Supreme court overturned a an RTB Arbitrator's ruling that awarded a tenant $25k for bad faith eviction. Pretty strong words from Judge against the arbitrator.

A judge has overturned an arbitrator’s decision that awarded a tenant $25,000, after the landlord argued her son had in fact moved into the rental suite following the tenant’s eviction.
Under B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord is permitted to evict a tenant if they or a family member plan to live in the property.
If the landlord or family fails to move in within a reasonable amount of time and don’t live there for at least 12 months, they must pay the evicted tenant the equivalent of 12 months’ worth of rent.
In a Nov. 14 Supreme Court of B.C. decision, Judge Wendy Baker detailed how the original residential tenancy branch decision came to be.

In January of this year, landlord Feng Ying Yu gave tenant Amber Carreiro a notice to end tenancy effective May 31, as her son would be moving into the property. Carreiro moved out early, on March 28.

The landlord then hired a painter to paint the rental unit before her son moved in. The painter was hired on April 1, with the work conducted from April 14 to May 8. The landlord’s son moved in on May 9, according to his testimony.

During the hearing, the tenant said they wanted to accommodate the landlord’s son as a reason for moving out early. The tenant told the branch of hearing “from other people that no one moved into the unit after her departure” and that furniture was moved in around May 27.

In response, the landlord submitted a gas bill for the property in her son’s name covering a period from April 9 to 28, along with a hydro bill in his name dated April 29.

“The arbitrator rejected the landlord’s evidence that the son moved into the unit within a reasonable time after the effective date on the notice,” with the arbitrator suggesting the son’s testimony was “limited and vague” during the hearing, and that the bills covered a period of time before his move-in.

The arbitrator also made the decision based on the lack of photographs of the furnished property, and no move-in documentation or witness statements from neighbours that supported the landlord’s position.

As a result, the branch had awarded Carreiro $25,444. However, in Baker’s ruling this month, she said she had “significant concerns with the reasoning of the arbitrator.” “Rather than assessing the evidence before him … the arbitrator criticized the landlord for not producing additional evidence,” she wrote.

The judge also noted that the effective date of the eviction notice was May 31, and it was irrelevant that the tenant moved out early, since the reasonable amount of time before a landlord is required to move into a property for their own use should be calculated from the effective date of the notice.

As well, the law requires that a landlord of family move in within a reasonable amount of time and also live in the property for at least 12 months or pay the tenant 12 months’ worth of rent. But because it had been just weeks between the effective date of the eviction notice and the branch hearing, it was impossible for the landlord’s son to meet the second requirement.

“I find the reasoning in the decision is clearly irrational,” wrote Baker.
In the end, Baker overturned the original decision, declined to refer the case back to the branch, and ordered the tenant to pay the landlord’s legal costs.

The actual ruling:
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/2...25BCSC2241.htm

The tenant's only evidence for her claim was "b) The tenant heard from other people that no one moved into the unit after her departure"