West Vancouver tenant's prolonged wine cooler dispute leads to his eviction

A West Vancouver man's exacting standards for the wine cooler in his rented townhome have led to three Residential Tenancy Board decisions, two court rulings and – ultimately – his eviction. (shutterstock.com)

A West Vancouver man's exacting standards for the wine cooler in his rented townhome have led to three Residential Tenancy Board decisions, two court rulings and – ultimately – his eviction.

B.C.'s highest court dismissed Azmairnin Jadavji's appeal of a lower-court decision upholding his eviction from the home he started renting for $5,700 a month in April 2020.

FIRST RTB DECISION

As summarized by B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Ronald A. Skolrood, the issues that ultimately led to the court case began "immediately" after Jadavji took possession of the property.

The tenant complained to landlord Jingjing Yin "about a number of perceived deficiencies" in the townhome, according to Skolrood's decision, which was issued last week and posted online Wednesday. 

In July 2020, Jadavji filed an application with the RTB seeking a monetary order regarding the deficiencies, a rent reduction and an order requiring the landlord to make certain repairs.

"On Oct. 24, 2020, an RTB arbitrator issued a monetary order in favour of the tenant in the amount of $1,075 for deficiencies in the property," the decision reads. "The arbitrator also ordered that the landlord provide a functional wine cooler by no later than Dec. 15, 2020. The issue of the wine cooler appears to have been of particular concern to the tenant."

SECOND RTB DECISION

The wine cooler continued to be an issue, with Jadavji returning to the RTB in March and April 2021 and "taking the position that the landlord had not provided an adequate replacement wine cooler and had failed to have the blinds in the property properly cleaned," according to the decision.

Once again, Jadavji was successful. The RTB ordered Yin to replace the wine cooler "with a comparable unit" and arrange for a professional cleaning of the blinds.

If the landlord failed to do so by June 15, 2021, Jadavji was entitled to withhold $500 of rent each month until the wine cooler was replaced, plus an additional $100 each month until the blinds were cleaned.

"In July 2021, the landlord installed a replacement wine cooler and arranged for the blinds to be cleaned, however the tenant was of the view that the new wine cooler was not of comparable quality and that not all of the blinds had been cleaned," Skolrood's decision reads.

"According to the landlord, four blinds were not cleaned because the tenant refused to move his furniture out of the way."

THIRD RTB DECISION

While Yin felt the RTB's requirements had been met, Jadavji disagreed, and continued to withhold $600 from his monthly rent payments.

In February 2022, the landlord served the tenant a 10-day notice to end tenancy for unpaid rent.

For the third time, the parties ended up before the RTB.

"In the decision, the arbitrator noted that there were effectively cross-applications by the parties," reads Skolrood's decision.

"The landlord sought an order of possession and a monetary order for unpaid rent, while the tenant sought an order cancelling the notice to end tenancy and an order for a rent reduction due to repairs, services or facilities agreed to but not provided."

This time, the RTB ruled in favour of the landlord, granting Yin an order of possession for the property and ordering Jadavji to pay $5,400 in unpaid rent arrears.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Jadavji applied for a review of the RTB decision on the basis that he had joined the hearing late due to an invalid access code, and was therefore denied the opportunity to participate fully in the RTB process. His review application was dismissed, and he sought a judicial review in B.C. Supreme Court.

The tenant argued that the RTB arbitrator's decision was "patently unreasonable" because the arbitrator had failed to consider a clause allowing them to "extend the time limit for paying overdue rent where 'the tenant has deducted the unpaid amount because the tenant believed that the deduction was allowed for emergency repairs or under an order of the director,'" according to the appeal court's decision.

The B.C. Supreme Court judge dismissed Jadavji's case, concluding that the language of the statute is "permissive." While an RTB arbitrator may consider extending the time limit in such circumstances, they are not required to do so.

Moreover, the judge noted that Jadavji had not brought up the clause allowing for extensions at the hearing before the arbitrator.

"Had he done so, the landlord would have had an opportunity to address the issue and the arbitrator may have been required to provide some indication of why he did or did not exercise that discretion," Skolrood's decision reads. "Given the judge’s finding that the arbitrator was not statutorily required to consider (the clause), the failure to do so did not render the decision patently unreasonable."

Skolrood concluded that Jadavji had failed to establish that either the Supreme Court judge or the RTB arbitrator had erred in their decisions. He and the rest of the three-judge appeal panel dismissed the tenant's case.