Tenant in low-cost housing could suffer 'irreparable harm' if evicted while appeal is pending
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has granted a stay order in favour of a tenant who was about to be evicted from low-cost housing due to her alleged abusive and discriminatory behaviour against other tenants.
In Campbell v. The Bloom Group, 2022 BCCA 364, Ellen Campbell rented a residential unit on Nelson Street in Vancouver which was operated by a not-for-profit housing services provider. The property was designated as affordable housing for low and moderate-income tenants. Campbell’s primary source of income was a monthly disability benefit payment of $1,400.
In April 2021, Campbell received a one-month notice to end her tenancy contract. The landlord said it had received multiple complaints from other tenants reporting Campbell’s verbally abusive and discriminatory behaviour. Campbell applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch for a dispute resolution proceeding seeking to cancel the notice to end tenancy.
The matter was heard by an arbitrator. At the outset of the hearing, Campbell requested for an adjournment due to the fact that she was afforded limited time to review the landlord’s evidence, which included a number of written complaints by other tenants about Campbell’s behaviour as well as video recordings. The arbitrator declined to grant an adjournment, and eventually dismissed Campbell’s application for dispute resolution.
The arbitrator said Campbell’s credibility “was already in doubt from the outset of the hearing.” Based on his assessment of the video recordings, the arbitrator was satisfied that Campbell had “purposefully engaged in a clear, consistent pattern of aggressive, profane, hostile, belligerent, unacceptable, increasingly threatening, and wholly inexcusable behaviour.” The arbitrator upheld the notice to end tenancy and issued an order of possession in favour of the landlord.
Campbell appealed and also applied for an order staying the order of possession pending the outcome of her appeal. Campbell argued that it was patently unreasonable and procedurally unfair for the arbitrator to rely on Campbell’s request for an adjournment as a reason to find that she was not credible. She said it was unfair and discriminatory to find that a person’s request for an adjournment to accommodate a disability undermined their credibility.
The Court of Appeal observed that the arbitrator’s factual findings in this case turned to a significant extent on the assessment of credibility. The court found that Campbell raised an arguable issue about the reasonableness of the arbitrator’s reliance on her request for accommodation in finding that her evidence was not credible. The court also found that Campbell would suffer irreparable harm if a stay of the possession order was not granted because she would endure the expense and difficulty of trying to find new housing on her relatively limited income. According to the court, this was harm which could not be compensated for if Campbell was ultimately successful on her appeal.
Considering these factors, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay of the order of possession pending the hearing of Campbell’s appeal. The court said that a stay order would ensure Campbell would not suffer the irreparable harm that could result if the order of possession was executed while her appeal was pending. It would also address, to a significant extent, the landlord’s concerns about further delay. While the court acknowledged that a further delay of three months would cause prejudice to the landlord, the court was of the view that there would be greater prejudice to Campbell if a stay was not granted.
