Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review sought on whether the arbitrator’s decision under the Residential Tenancy Act was patently unreasonable.

• The landlord’s failure to obtain a demolition permit before issuing notice to end tenancy was central to the dispute.

• Arbitration findings focused on the landlord’s non-compliance with section 49(6)(a) of the RTA.

• Reasonableness of the timeline to accomplish demolition was a core issue, especially considering delays.

• Extenuating circumstances claimed by the landlord (matrimonial litigation and CPL registration) were not accepted as valid justification.

• Arbitrator’s references to a six-month period were deemed legally incorrect but did not invalidate the overall decision.

Facts of the Case

Kapil Malik, the petitioner and landlord, brought a judicial review to the Supreme Court of British Columbia challenging a decision made by an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), S.B.C. 2002, c. 78. The dispute concerned a residential property at 1378 East 26th Avenue, Vancouver, jointly owned with his spouse.

In October 2021, Malik issued four-month notices to end tenancy to two sets of tenants—Jacobs and Thall (basement tenants) and Abel and Kunzova (main floor tenants)—on the grounds that the property would be demolished. This is a valid ground for eviction under s. 49(6)(a) of the RTA, provided the landlord has the necessary permits and genuinely intends to demolish.

However, the demolition did not occur. Instead, Malik re-rented the property in May 2022, prompting the former tenants to file claims for compensation under s. 51 of the RTA, which provides for 12 months’ rent if the stated reason for eviction is not carried out.

The arbitrator awarded:

• $16,596.00 to Jacobs and Thall

• $26,400.00 to Abel and Kunzova

Malik sought judicial review of this decision.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

Malik argued that:

1. The arbitrator incorrectly applied the law by referencing a six-month time frame for demolition, which doesn't apply to demolitions under the RTA.

2. The arbitrator failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting his claim that extenuating circumstances—including a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by his estranged spouse—had prevented the demolition.

The court acknowledged that the arbitrator mistakenly referred to a six-month period but found that this error did not affect the outcome. The arbitrator correctly concluded that:

• Malik did not have the required demolition permit when issuing notice.

• He failed to carry out the demolition within a reasonable period.

• The cited extenuating circumstances did not justify the delay, as Malik had ample time between tenant move-out and the CPL registration.

The judge found the arbitrator's reasons to be legally sound, transparent, and adequate.

Outcome

The judicial review was dismissed, and the arbitrator’s compensation awards under the RTA were upheld in full. The court also awarded the respondents costs at Scale B.