BURST
A judge has overturned an arbitrator’s decision that originally awarded a tenant $25,000, after the landlord argued her son had in fact moved into the rental suite following the tenant’s eviction.
Under B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord is permitted to evict a tenant with adequate notice if they or a family member plan to live in the property.
If the landlord fails to move in within a reasonable amount of time and they don’t live there for at least 12 months, they must pay the evicted tenant the equivalent of 12 months’ worth of rent.
In a Nov. 14 Supreme Court of B.C. decision , Judge Wendy Baker detailed how the original Residential Tenancy Branch decision came to be.
In a complaint with the RTB, tenant Amber Carreiro argued her landlord Feng Ying Yu had evicted her for the purpose of moving her own son into the rental property but did not do so.
During the original hearing on June 10, 2025, the RTB heard how the tenant had been living in the property since 2021.
In January of this year, the landlord gave the tenant a notice to end tenancy effective May 31, as her son would be moving into the property. The tenant moved out early on March 28.
The landlord then hired a painter to paint the rental unit before her son moved in. The painter was hired on April 1, with the work conducted from April 14 to May 8. The landlord’s son then moved in on May 9, according to his testimony.
During the hearing, the tenant said they wanted to accommodate the landlord’s son as a reason for moving out early. The tenant then told the RTB that they “heard from other people that no one moved into the unit after her departure” and that she saw furniture moved in around May 27.
In response, the landlord submitted a gas bill for the property in her son’s name covering a period from April 9 to 28, along with a hydro bill in his name dated April 29 to prove his residence.
“The arbitrator rejected the landlord’s evidence that the son moved into the unit within a reasonable time after the effective date on the notice,” with the arbitrator suggesting the son’s testimony was “limited and vague” during the hearing, and that the bills covered a period of time before his move-in date.
The arbitrator also made the decision based on the lack of photos of the furnished property, and no move-in documentation or witness statements from neighbours that supported the landlord’s position.
As a result, the RTB had awarded the tenant $25,444 for being evicted.
However, in Baker’s ruling this month, she said she had “significant concerns with the reasoning of the arbitrator.”
“Rather than assessing the evidence before him … the arbitrator criticized the landlord for not producing additional evidence,” she wrote.
Baker pointed out that while the tenant claimed people had moved into the property two weeks before the June 2025 RTB hearing, the tenant did not provide any evidence that showed it wasn’t the landlord’s son who moved in.
The judge also noted that the effective date of the eviction notice was May 31, and it was irrelevant that the tenant moved out early, since the reasonable amount of time before a landlord is required to move into a property for their own use should be calculated from the effective date of the notice.
As well, the RTA requires that a landlord both move in within a reasonable amount of time, and live in the property for at least 12 months or pay the tenant 12 months’ worth of rent. But because it had been just weeks between the effective date of the eviction notice and the RTB hearing, it was impossible for the landlord’s son to meet the second requirement.
“I find the reasoning in the decision is clearly irrational and so flawed that no amount of curial deference can justify letting it stand,” wrote Baker.
In the end, Baker overturned the RTB’s original decision, declined to refer the case back to the RTB, and ordered the tenant to pay the landlord’s legal costs.