B.C. landlord who evicted longtime tenant, hiked rent and re-listed unit ordered to pay $16K

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

A landlord from B.C.’s Lower Mainland who evicted a longtime tenant only to rent out the same unit months later for more money has been ordered to compensate him $16,480.

Renter Nicholas Hill had been living in the one-bedroom suite – located above the garage of a single-family home in South Surrey – for nearly six years when Fenglian Qi purchased the property in March 2021, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision handed down earlier in October.

Qi evicted Hill, who was then paying $1,365 a month in rent, with a message passed along through her Realtor that indicated close family would be moving into the suite, as allowed under the province’s Residential Tenancy Act.

But under the RTA, a family member must occupy a unit for at least six months following what’s known as a landlord’s use of property eviction. The court heard just three months after Hill vacated Qi’s suite in June 2021, she had begun renting the unit to a new tenant - this time for $1,800 a month.

“Even on the landlord’s evidence, it is clear that the suite was not used for the stated purpose for six months,” Justice Frits Verhoeven wrote in his Oct. 7 reasons.

The decision ordering Qi to pay her former tenant $16,480 - 12 months of his former rent, plus reimbursement of a $100 dispute filing fee - was issued by the Residential Tenancy Branch in April 2023, but the landlord fought back, first by requesting a review of the decision through an adjudicator, then by petitioning to have it overturned in B.C. Supreme Court.

In rejecting that petition, Verhoeven noted Hill had also been subject to separate “inappropriate proceedings” brought by the landlord in provincial court, plus a civil lawsuit accusing him of fraud, for which Qi sought $48,000 in damages from him.

“The action was later discontinued,” Verhoeven wrote.

Rental listed on Craigslist

In his case before the Residential Tenancy Branch, Hill presented a number of Craigslist advertisements showing his former home up for rent on June 14, 2021, just 11 days after Qi took possession of the property.

He also submitted text messages and emails from his friends responding to the ads and asking about the availability of the unit.

Qi maintained throughout the process that her intention had been for her adult daughter to move into the suite above the garage - and that she briefly did, until Qi’s husband suffered a fall on June 13.

After the accident, the landlord said, her daughter moved into the main home to help care for her father, because he “could not live independently,” according to the arbitrator’s decision. Qi argued her husband’s condition constituted “extenuating circumstances” under the law, which can excuse a homeowner from the normal requirements for landlord’s use evictions.

The arbitrator did not agree, however, writing in the decision that “the respondent’s daughter could still look after her father while living in the same home, without need to move into another part of the home and rent the rental unit for a higher rent.”

The arbitrator also questioned the timing of Qi’s husband’s fall, noting the only medical records presented by the family during the hearing were dated July 31. Qi later submitted additional evidence – a letter from her husband attesting that he fell on June 13 – while arguing for a review of the decision.

Landlord’s new evidence

Making her case before the adjudicator, Qi also provided a residential tenancy agreement signed on July 7, 2021, showing her new renter didn’t start living in the suite until September. This contradicted one finding of the arbitrator, who concluded, based on the Craigslist posts, text messages, emails and other material presented at the original Residential Tenancy Branch hearing, that the tenant likely moved in sometime in June, or soon thereafter.

Qi argued the documents constituted “new and relevant evidence that was not available” at the time of her hearing, which would be grounds for a review of the decision – but the adjudicator disagreed, and dismissed her request.

Verhoeven also refused to overturn the arbitrator’s decision and grant a new hearing, finding the reasoning had been “cogent, clear, and entirely rational.”

“Whether the new tenant occupied the suite in June, or July, or only September makes no difference,” the judge wrote.

“The decision is far removed from anything which could be characterized as ‘patently unreasonable,’ and therefore, cannot be interfered with.”