Background: The petitioner, Timmy Chi Keung Leung, was the landlord, and the respondent, Robert Sand Ty, was the tenant. The dispute arose over damage to a rental unit and the handling of a security deposit after the tenancy ended on August 15, 2023.

Arbitrator’s Decision: The Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) had awarded the tenant double the security deposit plus interest, totaling $2,050.00. The RTB also awarded the landlord $687.22 for carpet replacement, $210 for painting, and a $100 filing fee. These awards were set off against each other, resulting in a final payment by the landlord to the tenant of $1,073.95.

Legal Arguments/Issues: The landlord argued that the RTB misapplied sections of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) and that their right to claim against the security deposit was independent of condition inspection report requirements. The tenant supported the RTB decision and noted the landlord's failure to use the prescribed move-out inspection form.

Review of RTB Decision: The RTB’s decision was reviewed to determine whether new evidence should be admitted and whether there was a procedural error. The court upheld the RTB's decision, finding it was not patently unreasonable and followed a rational and tenable line of analysis according to the RTA.

Conclusion and Costs: The petition to quash the RTB decision was dismissed. The court upheld the award of double the security deposit plus interest to the tenant and awarded damages and filing fees to the landlord, resulting in a net payment of $1,073.95 from the landlord to the tenant.