Background:
Steve Green and Pam Green, tenants for 12 years, appealed an order from the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) granting Surjit Kooner, the landlord, an order of possession. The dispute arose after the landlord sought to end the tenancy due to the tenants' breach of a no-pets clause. The tenants argued the landlord had been aware of their dog throughout the tenancy.

Legal Issues:
The RTB arbitrator dismissed the tenants' dispute resolution application, citing procedural errors, including failure to properly serve notice and uploading an inappropriate document instead of the required notice. The tenants applied for judicial review, claiming the RTB’s decision was procedurally unfair and unreasonable. They also argued the landlord had acquiesced to the presence of their dog and presented evidence of a medical need for the service animal. The judicial review application was dismissed, and the tenants sought a stay of the possession order pending appeal.

Court's Findings:
The Court of Appeal found merit in the tenants' argument that the original arbitrator’s dismissal may have been capricious, particularly regarding the improper document submission. The Court also noted the arbitrator failed to address whether the no-pets clause had been waived due to the landlord's knowledge of the dog.

Outcome:
The Court granted a stay of the RTB order until November 15, 2024, or the hearing of the review application, whichever occurred first. No specific award or costs in favor of either party were mentioned.