Photo: X / caroltreardon

B.C. Judge Cancels Eviction of Elderly Renter Over Landlord’s Actions

A 73-year-old woman in British Columbia has successfully challenged an eviction order, with the court ruling that her landlord’s actions were questionable and unfair. The judge found that the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) had not properly considered whether the landlord was acting in good faith when trying to evict the tenant. This case highlights how vulnerable tenants, especially those in affordable housing, can be pushed out through suspicious and possibly dishonest methods.

Who is the Tenant and Why is this Case Important?

The tenant, Janet Fraser, has lived in her two-bedroom apartment for more than 20 years. She lives with her partner, Jerry, who is 69 years old, deaf, and suffering from serious health conditions including Stage 4 cancer and multiple sclerosis. The apartment is in an eight-unit rental building and Janet pays only $780 a month, which the judge described as “significantly below market value.”

The judge, Sandra Sukstorf, pointed out that evicting Janet and her partner would cause severe hardship. For them, losing this long-standing and affordable housing could be devastating. The court also noted that the RTB arbitrator had failed to properly examine whether the landlord was being honest or hiding ulterior motives.

What Happened Leading to the Eviction?

In October 2023, the landlord, a numbered company named 1392383 B.C. Ltd., served an eviction notice claiming the building would be demolished and converted for other use. Janet tried to negotiate a rent increase, offering to pay more money if the eviction was dropped. However, the landlord’s agent refused, stating the apartment could be rented for $1,500 to $2,000 more than Janet’s rent.

The notice was later canceled due to a clerical error. But soon after, a major water leak damaged the apartment. The ceiling was left with a large hole that was covered by a tarp but not repaired.

A month later, the landlord served a second eviction notice, this time claiming the unit would be converted into a caretaker’s suite. The landlord said Janet’s apartment was the only one suitable for this purpose because of its location at the back of the building. However, the property management company testified that it had never managed a building with a live-in caretaker, raising more doubts about the landlord’s intentions.

Despite these concerns, the RTB arbitrator ruled in favor of the landlord, stating that “good faith” was proven and that the law allowed eviction in such cases.

Judge’s Findings: What Was Wrong with the RTB’s Decision?

Judge Sukstorf found the RTB’s reasoning unreasonable and poorly explained. The law does not require the court to decide whether the landlord is honest but asks whether the arbitrator reasonably applied the correct rules to assess “good faith.”

The judge said that improper motives can cancel an eviction notice. She found that Janet had shown evidence that raised the possibility of the landlord having dishonest intentions. For example:

• Several eviction notices were issued to neighbors for “family use.”

• Some notices listed landlords who did not appear in official records.

• There was no explanation why another similar vacant unit was not used for the caretaker.

• The landlord shifted explanations about the eviction multiple times.

The judge said these points suggested a broader pattern of removing tenants paying below-market rent.

Impact of the Ruling

The judge ruled that the RTB arbitrator failed to assess the landlord’s credibility and ignored important evidence. The decision was set aside, meaning it no longer holds. The case will be sent back to the RTB for a new hearing, with a different decision-maker required to carefully consider the impact on the tenant.

The judge highlighted that because Janet and her partner are vulnerable, the arbitrator had a duty to explain the eviction’s severe impact. A careless decision could disrupt their lives.

Why This Case Matters

This case is important because it shows how landlords can misuse eviction laws to pressure tenants, especially those in affordable housing, out of their homes. It also sends a message that tribunals and courts must carefully assess good faith and ensure tenants are treated fairly.

Many experts believe eviction notices citing family use or caretaker needs can be abused, especially when landlords want to replace long-term tenants with those who can pay higher rents. In this case, the judge’s ruling stands as an example of how courts can protect vulnerable renters from unfair practices.

Looking Ahead

The RTB will now have to conduct a new hearing and properly assess the landlord’s intentions. The court’s decision also reminds other landlords and property managers that eviction notices must be based on genuine needs, not on attempts to increase rent unfairly.

For tenants, the case serves as a hopeful example that they can stand up for their rights and challenge eviction orders that are not fully justified.