A pair of Surrey landlords lost an application for a judicial review against a Residential Tenancy Branch decision that awarded $29,500 to their former tenants for failing to accomplish the stated purpose of an eviction notice.
Justice Ardith Walkem rendered her decision on April 2 in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster.
Tajinder Lalli and Salveen Lalli rented out a house to Amanda Logan and Vincent Crowley in Sullivan for $2,450 per month while living at another property they owned next door.
The court heard the landlords had issued a two-month eviction notice on Nov. 30, 2022 stating the rental unit "will be occupied by the landlord and the landlord's spouse." The tenants vacated from the premises on Jan. 31, 2023, which was the effective date.
After the rental unit was listed for sale on May 30, 2023, and sold on June 3, 2023 with a possession date of July 29, 2023, Logan and Crowley filed a dispute notice with the RTB for $29,400 鈥� equal to 12 times their monthly rent 鈥� on June 23, 2023, and also sought recovery of the $100 filing fee, against the Lallis for not using the rental unit for the purpose stated in the eviction notice.
Their dispute notice alleged the landlords left the property vacant for three and a half months, lived in it "for only a few weeks" and then sold it and that the rental unit 鈥渨ill not be lived in by the landlords for the 6 month time frame as described in the notice to end [tenancy].鈥�
After hearings by telephone with an RTB arbitrator on Dec. 22, 2023 and April 8, 2024, in which the tenants argued the landlords didn't reside in the unit from Feb. 1, 2023 and didn't move into it until May, 3, 2023. "The tenants argued that the landlords had always intended to sell the rental unit, per their previous discussion with the landlords. The tenants argued that the rental unit did not require the cleaning and repair indicated by the landlords," Walkem noted in her
Legal counsel for the landlords told the RTB that Tajinder Lalli moved into the unit on Feb. 11, 2023, but the rest of his family didn't move in until May 3, 2023.
"The Landlords sought consideration of the extenuating circumstance that the rental unit needed to be cleaned and repaired prior to the whole family moving in. They argued that the need for cleaning and repairs justified the 3.5 month delay in the family moving into the rental unit," Walkem noted. "The landlords further argued the extenuating circumstance that they had intended to live in the rental unit, but that their plans were waylaid when their realtor brought a listing for their 'dream home' to their attention. The landlords purchased the dream home, and consequently sold the rental unit."
The RTB arbitrator鈥檚 decision was rendered on April 30, 2024. The landlords claimed the unit was damaged and needed to be repaired whereas the former tenants testified they left the unit in a "reasonaby clean and undamaged condition" and based on BC Hydro bills indicating low energy use it was vacant until May 2023.
The arbitrator didn't accept the Lallis' argument that 鈥渁n opportunity to purchase and move into their dream home鈥� was an extenuating circumstance.
The landlords then applied for a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision on ground it was "patently unreasonable."
Walkem disagreed.
"The arbitrator interpreted and applied the law in a manner that cannot be said to be patently unreasonable," the judge concluded.
"I find that the reasons are sufficient to enable the reviewing court to understand how and why the decision was made. Accordingly, I dismiss the petition for judicial review.
