BC Supreme Court overturns arbitrator’s decision in mobile home park eviction case

The Supreme Court of British Columbia overturned an arbitrator's decision in a dispute between a mobile home park tenant and her landlord, ruling that the eviction notice was issued prematurely.

In Millar v Laughlin’s Mobile Home Park Ltd., 2024 BCSC 1834, the court found that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (MHPTA) was "patently unreasonable" and set aside the eviction.

The case centred on a tenant who had lived in a mobile home park for many years and owned her mobile home while renting the lot from the landlord. In early 2023, the landlord raised concerns about maintenance issues on the tenant’s property. After attempts to resolve the issues, the landlord issued a formal notice to end the tenancy in August 2023. The tenant challenged the eviction, and the dispute was brought to the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) for arbitration.

During the first arbitration, the parties reached a settlement that required the tenant to arrange for a home inspection to assess the structural integrity of the home. The arbitrator overseeing the settlement set a 30-day deadline for the tenant to arrange the inspection, with the landlord agreeing to cover the cost. However, due to an urgent home insurance claim, the tenant requested a delay in arranging the inspection. Despite this, the landlord issued a second eviction notice, citing non-compliance with the settlement terms.

A second arbitration hearing was held, where the arbitrator ruled in favour of the landlord, upholding the eviction notice and issuing an order of possession. The tenant then applied to the BC Supreme Court for judicial review, arguing that the landlord had issued the notice prematurely, in violation of s. 40(1)(k) of the MHPTA, which requires a landlord to wait 30 days after a tenant’s non-compliance before issuing an eviction notice.

The court agreed with the tenant, finding that the arbitrator’s decision was patently unreasonable. The court emphasized that the MHPTA clearly requires a 30-day waiting period after the compliance deadline, which the landlord failed to observe. As a result, the court ruled that the eviction notice was invalid and set aside both the notice and the order of possession.

The court further decided not to remit the matter back to the RTB for further arbitration, determining that the outcome would be the same if reconsidered. The decision allowed the tenant to remain in her home, and the landlord was ordered to cover the tenant’s legal costs.