Background: The Shusters entered into a two-year tenancy agreement with rent set at $5,500 for the first year and $6,500 for the second. They received a Notice of Rent Increase form from Prompton three months before the end of the fixed term. The Shusters challenged the validity of both rent increases, citing insufficient notice for the first increase.

Legal Arguments/Issues:

• The Shusters argued that the rent increases violated the notice and timing requirements under Section 42 of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) and the Residential Tenancy Regulation.
• The arbitrator found that the tenancy agreement itself, which clearly stated the rent amounts for each year, satisfied the requirements, and Section 42 did not apply.
• The Shusters contended the arbitrator’s decision was patently unreasonable and that the doctrine of estoppel was improperly applied.

Court Decision: The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal. It held that the arbitrator’s decision was not patently unreasonable, as the tenancy agreement clearly outlined the rent terms and was not an attempt to bypass the RTA provisions.

Costs/Awards: The judgment did not specify a total amount of costs or awards in favor of the successful party.

Conclusion: The appeal by Gary Shuster and Dana Shuster was dismissed, affirming the RTB’s decision that the rent increases were valid as per the tenancy agreement.