Background
Daniel Kirk Owings had lived in a Kamloops rental unit since 2016 and operated an electronics-repair business from his home. His landlord, Gurmail Singh Sanghera, served a one-month notice ending the tenancy for cause after activity at the property led to police calls, its designation as a nuisance property, and municipal fines against the landlord exceeding $6,000. The Residential Tenancy Branch found that Owings or people he permitted on the property had engaged in misconduct seriously prejudicial to Sanghera and harmful to the property. It granted Sanghera possession effective January 31, 2026, and later dismissed Owings’s request for review.
Owings sought judicial review, arguing in part that authorities had failed to distinguish his unit, which he called 990A, from another portion of the property and that other occupants may have caused some of the problems. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed his petition on September 2, 2026. Owings appealed and asked the Court of Appeal to stay the possession order while the appeal proceeded.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Griffin, sitting in chambers, dismissed the application for a stay pending appeal. Applying the three-part test for interlocutory relief, the Court concluded that the appeal appeared very weak. The RTB’s findings were supported by the evidence, including Owings’s own acknowledgment that he was responsible for some fines and evidence concerning the conduct of people permitted on the property. It was therefore unlikely that he could establish that the RTB’s decision was patently unreasonable.
The Court was also not persuaded that refusing a stay would cause irreparable harm. Although losing a long-term home can constitute irreparable harm, Owings had known since November 2025 that he might have to leave, had not advanced the judicial-review proceeding promptly, and had indicated that he could arrange to move by the end of September 2026. The balance of convenience favoured Sanghera, who had been prevented for months from enforcing a lawful possession order and had incurred another municipal fine during that period. With the landlord’s agreement, however, the Court temporarily stayed the possession order until 1 p.m. on September 30, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant seeking a stay pending appeal must show an arguable appeal, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring relief, with the interests of justice remaining the ultimate consideration.
- Delay in pursuing judicial review and the time available to arrange alternative housing can substantially weaken a tenant’s claim of irreparable harm.
- A lawful possession order and continuing prejudice to the landlord, including additional municipal fines, may outweigh the tenant’s interest in remaining during an appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that even where eviction from a long-term residence may ordinarily cause irreparable harm, that consideration is not decisive. Courts will assess the appeal’s apparent strength, the applicant’s diligence, and the prejudice imposed on a landlord who remains unable to enforce a valid possession order.
It also shows that an appellate court may refuse a stay pending appeal while granting a brief transitional stay to permit an orderly move.