Coquitlam landlords’ attempt to overturn $12,000 tenant award fails in B.C. Supreme Court

A Coquitlam couple who evicted their tenant on the grounds that a family member would move into the suite have failed to convince a judge that a $12,000 compensation award against them was unreasonable or unfair.

In a July 11 decision, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Karen Douglas dismissed a petition from Kristyna and Neil Bennett, who had sought to overturn a Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) decision that ruled they failed to follow through on their stated intention for ending Andrea Seto’s tenancy.

The court found no evidence of bias, no procedural unfairness, and no reviewable error in the RTB’s decision to award Seto the equivalent of 12 months’ rent.

Seto had been living in the basement suite of the Bennetts’ home since 2019. On Dec. 19, 2022, the Bennetts served her a two-month eviction notice, stating that Kristyna’s mother, Elia Zaurrini – a co-owner of the property – would occupy the unit while waiting for construction to finish on her new condo. Seto vacated the unit by the deadline of Feb. 28, 2023.

However, in the months that followed, the unit was advertised for rent online, prompting Seto to file a claim under B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act, which requires landlords to compensate tenants if they fail to follow through on personal-use evictions.

At the November 2023 RTB hearing, the arbitrator found the Bennetts had not met their burden of proof to show that Zaurrini had moved in within a reasonable time and remained there for at least six months – the minimum requirement under the law.

Although Zaurrini testified that she moved in on March 1, 2023, and stayed until early September, the arbitrator found that this was not supported by credible evidence.

Central to the arbitrator’s reasoning were Facebook messages sent by Kristyna to prospective tenants.

In a July 26, 2023 message, she wrote that the unit was “empty now.” In a landlord group post, she wrote, “My elderly mom moved in until her unit was built. Moved out end of July.” At the hearing, she claimed she had “worded it wrong” and “was not watching (her) words.”

The arbitrator found these explanations vague and not credible.

The Bennetts attempted to argue the RTB had overlooked key evidence they claimed showed the unit was being occupied, including e-transfer receipts from Zaurrini up until June 2023, a letter from a neighbour and a social worker, and photos of her vehicle and unit.

However, the arbitrator found that none of these items definitively proved Zaurrini occupied the basement unit, rather than another part of the house. He noted the vehicle could belong to someone visiting the property, the photos showed few belongings, and the neighbour had never entered the unit himself.

Douglas, reviewing the RTB’s decision under the high threshold of “patent unreasonableness,” concluded that the arbitrator’s reasoning was logically coherent, well-founded in the evidence, and within the bounds of the RTB’s discretion.

“The central issue before the arbitrator was whether the landlords had met their burden of proving that Ms. Zaurrini had occupied the unit within a reasonable time and for at least six months,” Douglas stated in the ruling. “The fact that (the social worker) recommended Ms. Zaurrini move into the unit . . . does not mean that Ms. Zaurrini did so.”

The court also rejected the Bennetts’ argument that the hearing was procedurally unfair, as Seto was given an opportunity to question the landlords, but Kristyna was not specifically invited to cross-examine Seto. However, Douglas said there was no indication that she ever requested to do so.

The judge also did not find merit in the argument that the hearing should have been adjourned so the Bennetts’ neighbour could testify live, as Kristyna conceded they never entered the unit.

The judge upheld the RTB’s original decision and dismissed the Bennetts’ petition in full, including their allegations of bias.

Under B.C. law, tenants can claim 12 months’ rent – in this case, $1,000 per month – if a landlord cannot prove that they or their close family member actually used the unit for at least six months after the eviction.

The Bennetts did not argue extenuating circumstances, leaving the burden entirely on them to show that the purpose for the eviction was fulfilled.

Seto’s compensation remains enforceable following the court’s decision.