Vancouver buyer ordered to pay $39K after court upholds ruling she failed to prove she lived in the unit after tenant eviction for landlord use.
A Vancouver landlord has been ordered to pay $39,040 in compensation to two former tenants after failing to prove she occupied the property following their eviction. The decision, recently upheld by the B.C. Supreme Court, confirms a previous ruling by the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB).
Disputed Eviction: Landlord Cited Personal Use
In May 2023, tenants Kevin Mathew Stroesser and Mona Lotfizadeh were served a two-month notice to vacate their two-bedroom condo on Beach Avenue, which they rented for $3,245/month. The notice cited landlord’s use of property, a legal justification for eviction if the owner intends to personally occupy the unit.
The tenants moved out by July 31, but later challenged the eviction, claiming the landlord never moved in as promised.
RTB Found “Insufficient Evidence” of Occupancy
Landlord Jianshuang Huang asserted that she and her daughter moved into the unit on August 1, 2023, but the RTB found her evidence lacking. The decision noted that Huang only submitted utility bills and ownership documents, without any corroborating proof like mail, photos, or delivery records confirming her residence.
The RTB awarded the tenants 12 months’ rent plus fees, citing “significant doubt” about Huang’s credibility due to the limited documentation provided.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal, Cites Lack of Proof
Huang applied for a judicial review of the RTB ruling, arguing the decision was “patently unreasonable” and that the arbitrator had misinterpreted legal terms and standards of proof.
Justice Jacqueline D. Hughes of the B.C. Supreme Court dismissed all claims, finding that:
- The arbitrator clearly understood and applied the term “occupy”
- Huang failed to submit adequate evidence of her residence
- The burden of proof used was civil standard, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”
- The reasoning provided by the RTB was clear, sufficient, and justified
The ruling emphasizes that mere ownership or intention to occupy is not enough to meet the legal requirement—actual occupancy must be demonstrable.
Legal Clarity on “Occupancy” and Tenant Protections
Justice Hughes’ ruling reinforces the responsibility of landlords to provide strong documentation when evicting tenants for personal use. The court stated that leaving a property vacant post-eviction does not satisfy the legal definition of occupancy.
The decision also serves as a warning to property owners: failure to meet evidentiary standards can result in significant financial liability under B.C.’s tenancy laws.
Stay tuned to Maple News Wire for more developments in Canadian housing and tenant law.
