Background
Patrick Sparling and Natalie Sutcliffe had rented a four-bedroom Surrey home from Ronghui Zheng since 2019. Beginning in 2022, Zheng issued multiple notices to end the tenancy for landlord or family occupancy, several of which were cancelled. A third notice was initially upheld, but the resulting possession order was later set aside for procedural unfairness and remitted to the Residential Tenancy Branch.
After Zheng was diagnosed with cancer in May 2025, he issued additional notices. An RTB arbitrator cancelled two notices for procedural defects but upheld the sixth notice, accepting that Zheng and close family members genuinely intended in good faith to occupy the home. Medical evidence indicated that Zheng ideally needed a separate bedroom and bathroom while undergoing treatment. An RTB review adjudicator and a British Columbia Supreme Court judge declined to disturb the decision, and the tenants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator’s decision was not patently unreasonable. The arbitrator treated genuine intention and good faith as distinct requirements, considered whether Zheng had an ulterior financial motive, evaluated the history of earlier notices, and reasonably concluded that his cancer diagnosis and medical needs represented a material change in circumstances supporting good faith.
The arbitrator also correctly placed the burden on Zheng to prove good faith. She was entitled to find that the earlier notices were relevant but not determinative and was not required to decide whether Zheng’s existing apartment was unsuitable or whether he had searched for alternative housing. The court declined to entertain issue-estoppel and abuse-of-process arguments as new issues on appeal because the tenants had not squarely raised them before the arbitrator, on RTB reconsideration, or during judicial review.
The court upheld the order of possession but extended the stay of the RTB decision until August 31, 2026, allowing the tenants additional time to arrange alternative housing.
Key Takeaways
- A landlord seeking possession under s. 49(3) of British Columbia’s Residential Tenancy Act must prove both a genuine intention to occupy the unit and the absence of an ulterior motive.
- Earlier unsuccessful occupancy notices may inform the good-faith analysis without conclusively determining whether a later notice was issued in bad faith, particularly where circumstances have materially changed.
- Courts generally will not decide issue-estoppel or abuse-of-process arguments raised for the first time on appeal when the administrative tribunal had no opportunity to address them.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the highly deferential patent-unreasonableness standard governing judicial review of RTB decisions. An arbitrator need not resolve every evidentiary dispute or address every fact individually, provided the reasons show that the tribunal understood and grappled with the fundamental issues.
It also clarifies that a landlord claiming personal occupancy need not prove that current accommodations are inadequate or that alternative housing has been exhausted. The statutory question remains whether the landlord or a close family member genuinely intends, in good faith, to occupy the rental unit.