Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Legality of a two-month eviction notice under s. 49 of the RTA based on landlord’s stated intent to occupy the rental unit.

• Failure to occupy the unit for six months post-eviction triggered tenant compensation under s. 51(2) of the RTA.

• Dispute over actual move-in and move-out dates, with conflicting accounts and reliance on utility records.

• Landlords claimed extenuating circumstances due to sudden purchase of a "dream home," but this was deemed insufficient under s. 51(3).

• Procedural fairness concerns raised regarding the scope of issues addressed during the RTB hearing.

• Court upheld the RTB decision, finding no patent unreasonableness in the arbitrator’s analysis or application of the law.

Facts of the Case

Tajinder and Salveen Lalli (the “Landlords”) owned a rental property at 15482 Kilmore Street in Surrey, British Columbia. Their tenants, Amanda Logan and Vincent Crowley (the “Tenants”), were paying $2,450 per month. On November 30, 2022, the Landlords issued a two-month eviction notice claiming that they or a close family member would move into the unit — a lawful ground for eviction under section 49 of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA).

The tenants vacated the property as required by January 31, 2023. However, the property remained unoccupied for approximately 3.5 months. In May 2023, the Landlords briefly moved in but soon after purchased a different property — referred to as their “dream home” — and sold the rental unit with possession effective July 29, 2023.

This triggered a claim by the Tenants under section 51(2) of the RTA, which allows tenants to seek compensation of 12 months’ rent if the landlord fails to use the unit for the stated purpose for at least six months after the effective date of eviction.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

Tenants’ Position:

• The Landlords did not occupy the rental unit for the required six-month duration.

• They believed the eviction was pretextual, as the unit was listed and sold within months.

• They relied on BC Hydro usage data to argue the property was vacant for most of the relevant period.

Landlords’ Position:

• Claimed that Tajinder Lalli moved in on February 1, 2023, and the rest of the family joined on May 3.

• Asserted the delay was due to cleaning and repairs.

• Argued that the decision to purchase a new home was due to an unanticipated opportunity, qualifying as an extenuating circumstance under section 51(3) of the RTA.

RTB Arbitrator’s Decision:

• Found that even accepting the February 1 move-in date, the landlords failed to occupy the unit for six full months (only until July 29).

• Held that buying a new home by choice did not qualify as an extenuating circumstance beyond the landlord’s control.

• Awarded the tenants $29,400 (12 months’ rent) plus the $100 RTB filing fee.

Judicial Review & Court’s Ruling

The Landlords sought judicial review of the RTB decision, arguing that:

• The arbitrator misapplied the law, especially the six-month occupancy requirement.

• The decision was patently unreasonable, lacked adequate reasoning, and was procedurally unfair.

Justice Walkem of the Supreme Court of British Columbia rejected these arguments, concluding:

• The arbitrator’s decision was legally sound and within the RTB’s expertise.

• The six-month requirement was correctly interpreted and applied.

• The explanation of the ruling was adequate for both parties and the reviewing court to understand.

• The hearing was procedurally fair, even if conducted by phone and with some ambiguity in submissions.

As a result, the petition for judicial review was dismissed, and the tenants were awarded costs at Scale B.