Background
Jay Page had rented Unit 6 in a six-unit Vancouver building since 2013. In 2022, Tham Properties Inc. unsuccessfully sought his agreement to increase his below-market rent. The following year, the landlord served Page and another tenant with notices ending their tenancies, stating that the landlord’s principals and family members would occupy their units. The stated plan was to downsize, care for aging parents with health problems, reduce living costs, and manage the building more easily.
A Residential Tenancy Branch arbitrator upheld the notice and ordered Page to vacate. She found that the landlord had proved a good-faith intention to occupy the unit and rejected Page’s contention that the eviction was motivated by his below-market rent. A reconsideration application failed, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Page’s petition for judicial review. Page appealed, arguing that the arbitrator failed to address evidence of an ulterior motive and should have required evidence directly from the family member expected to occupy the unit.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Applying the highly deferential patent-unreasonableness standard directly to the original arbitration decision, the Court held that the arbitrator’s reasons disclosed a rational chain of reasoning. Read as a whole, they showed why she found that the notice was issued for genuine family and financial reasons rather than an ulterior purpose.
The arbitrator was not required to discuss every item of evidence or submission expressly. She adequately addressed the alleged rent-related motive and was entitled to treat the landlord’s financial concerns as subjective without deciding whether financial hardship objectively existed. The Court declined to consider Page’s further argument that the Residential Tenancy Act required direct evidence from the intended family occupant because that statutory-interpretation issue had evolved into a new issue on appeal and should first be decided by an RTB arbitrator. The Court vacated the stay of the possession order effective August 31, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- An RTB decision is patently unreasonable only if it is openly, clearly, or evidently unreasonable; a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence.
- An arbitrator assessing good faith must address both genuine intent to occupy and the absence of an ulterior motive, but need not expressly discuss every piece of evidence.
- A materially new statutory-interpretation argument ordinarily should not be raised for the first time on appeal, particularly where the administrative tribunal has not interpreted its home statute on the point.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the substantial deference owed to British Columbia residential-tenancy arbitrators, including when courts evaluate the adequacy of their reasons. Reasons may withstand review if their logic and treatment of the fundamental dispute are understandable, even when they do not expressly address every evidentiary detail.
It also leaves unresolved whether a landlord seeking possession for a family member must present evidence directly from that intended occupant. The Court held only that the issue was not properly before it and should first be considered by the RTB.