Evicted tenant made 'joke' of dispute resolution process, B.C. court hears

This stock image shows a door with an eviction notice on it. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. tenant abused the province's dispute resolution process by uploading a "rude and profane picture" instead of a document to an online portal, according to a recent court decision.

A ruling upholding the tenant's eviction for cause was handed down in B.C. Supreme Court Wednesday, with a judge finding the decision of an arbitrator at the Residential Tenancy Branch was not unfair or "patently unreasonable."

The court heard Steve Green was first served with a one-month notice to vacate his Surrey suite in November of 2022, with the landlord saying he had breached the terms of his rental agreement by having a pet and by changing the locks without informing the landlord or providing keys. Green lived in the suite with his wife and mother.

Tenant challenges eviction

In December of 2022, Green disputed the eviction at the Residential Tenancy Branch, filing two separate applications, according to Justice Kenneth Ball's decision on the petition for review.

A hearing, to be conducted via conference call, was scheduled for April of 2023. The arbitrator started the hearing by addressing the issue of documents, noting that Green had not uploaded a copy of the eviction notice but instead submitted the offending image – which is not described in detail.

The arbitrator's decision to uphold the eviction and dismiss the tenants' dispute was based, at least in part, on their decision not to provide the document required.

"I find the tenants' inappropriate and rude documents uploaded in place of the one-month notice is an abuse of the dispute resolution process," the court decision says, quoting from the RTB's reasons.

"The tenants filed an application to cancel a one-month notice, but rather than provide a copy of that notice, they opted to make a joke. I hereby dismissed both of the tenants’ applications, in full."

The RTB also found that the tenants had not properly served the landlord with the documents required, which was an additional ground on which to dismiss their application.

"An order that the tenants deliver full and peaceable vacant occupation of the rental unit to the landlord not later than two days after service of the order upon the tenants was prepared and signed that day," the court decision says.

However, the tenants obtained a stay of the eviction order and applied to have the RTB decision reviewed. That application was also dismissed – prompting the petition for judicial review.

Guide or service dog?

One of the issues that arose in the RTB dispute, the court noted, was that Green claimed that his dog was not a pet. In support of that, he submitted a doctor's note saying he required a guide or service dog to "assist him in daily living."

However, the judge said the note was not sufficient to prove the dog was not a pet given that it lacked certain specifics.

"The doctor did not indicate whether it was specifically a guide dog or a service dog which was required. No dog was specifically named or otherwise identified, and nor was any history of training of that animal noted in the tenants’ evidence," Ball wrote.

The judge also said that the evidence submitted to the RTB showed that a number of noise complaints about the dog had been made to the City of Surrey.

"I would note that common sense indicates a constantly barking dog is very unlikely to have the qualities required by a guide or service dog," the judge continued.

Ultimately, the judge found no reason to overturn the RTB's decision and set an eviction date of June 30, 2024.