Skip to main content

Vancouver: The Landlords Personal Use notice does not require the landlord to move in personally. Personal use might be the use of the unit by family or friends at the owner landlords discretion. It may be to reduce the amount of tenant fatigue on the unit or to use it as a personal prayer space, to make repairs for family, or maybe to use it or the unit as an office. The RTB is not called upon to go beyond the Vail of the landlords notice and filing. But the person providing the personal use notice must move in themselves or have a friend or family member move in for at least 12 months. Nonetheless, they received sufficient notice also under the terms of the lease agreement and the personal use notice is not necessary to end the tenancy. They provided only 60 days notice and that is consistent with the notice period under the lease or the tenant does not qualify for subsidised housing any longer. Personal use notice requires 3 months notice personal use notice requires 4 months. The order for damages to be paid the tenants is anathema under the regime that is designed for the protection of Landlords also. What proof would the RTB require if there is any debate over "personal use" and if the landlord actually moved in there . He moved in but he let his son stay there most of the time. The Rogers bill is proof. It could be personal use for repairs! You moved in to complete them. It does not require any further discussion. Also the new owner is not obligated to maintain any tenancy agreement indefinitely that they may have acquired on the purchase of the the unit.

on

Vancouver:  The Landlords Personal Use notice does  not require the landlord to move in personally. 

Personal use might be the use of the unit by family or friends at the owner  landlords discretion.

It may be to reduce the amount of tenant fatigue on the unit or to use it as a personal prayer space, to make repairs for family, or maybe to use it or the unit as an office.    The RTB is not called upon to go beyond the Vail of the landlords notice and filing.  But the person providing the personal use notice must  move in themselves or  have a friend or family member move in for at least 12 months.  


Nonetheless, they received sufficient notice also under the terms of the lease agreement and the personal use notice is not necessary to end the tenancy.  They provided only 60 days notice and that is consistent with the notice period under the lease or the tenant 

does not  qualify for subsidised housing any longer.  Personal use notice requires 3 months notice personal use notice requires 4 months.  

The order for damages to be paid the tenants  is anathema under the regime that is designed for the protection of Landlords also.  What proof would the RTB require if there is any debate over "personal use" and if the landlord actually moved in there . He moved in but he let his son stay there most of the time. The Rogers bill is proof.   It could be  personal use for repairs! You moved in to complete them. It does not require any further discussion.  


  Also the new owner is not obligated to maintain any tenancy agreement indefinitely that they may have acquired on the purchase of the the unit.

.  Here's a more detailed breakdown:

  • Notice Period:
    Landlords in BC must now provide a four-month notice to end tenancy if they intend to move into the rental property or have a close family member move in. 
  • Notice Generation:
    Landlords need to use the RTB's web portal to generate the Four Month Notice to End Tenancy (form RTB-32L). 
  • Tenant Dispute:
    Tenants have 30 days to dispute the eviction notice with the RTB. 
  • Occupation Requirement:
    The person moving into the property must actually occupy it for at least 12 months. 
  • Bad Faith Evictions:
    Landlords evicting in bad faith may be ordered to pay the tenant 12 months' rent as compensation. 
  • Web Portal:
    The RTB web portal allows landlords to generate the notice and provides a unique ID for tracking purposes. 
  • Changes to RTB:
    The province has taken steps to reduce wait times at the RTB, including improvements to dispute resolution processes. 
  • Recent Changes:
    In summer 2025, the notice period for personal use will be reduced from four months to three months. 
Types of Eviction Notices:
  • Ten-Day Notice: This is used for non-payment of rent or utilities. 
  • One-Month Notice: This is for various reasons, including non-compliance with the RTA or the tenancy agreement, or for ending the employment of a caretaker. 
  • Two-Month Notice: This is used if a tenant no longer qualifies for subsidized housing. 
  • Three-Month Notice: This is for the landlord's use of the property, such as moving in themselves.    
  • Four-Month Notice: This is for demolition or conversion of the rental unit, or if the landlord is seeking to use the property for a different purpose. 







Skip to main content

Vancouver

Vancouver condo buyer ordered to pay evicted tenants $39K after failing to prove she moved into unit

By Ian Holliday

Published: 

A portion of the Vancouver skyline and the Burrard Street Bridge are seen from English Bay in this file photo. (CTV News)

A Vancouver landlord has lost her bid to overturn $39,000 in compensation she was ordered to pay to tenants she improperly evicted in 2023.

Jianshuang Huang purchased her unit in the high-rise at 1005 Beach Ave. in August of that year, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision issued last month and published online Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kevin Mathew Stroesser and Mona Lotfizadeh were renting the two-bedroom condo from its previous owner for $3,245 a month, according to the decision.

The decision indicates the tenants received a two-month notice to end tenancy for landlord’s use of property in late May 2023, and they moved out on July 31.

A year later, they took Huang to the Residential Tenancy Branch, arguing that she had failed to accomplish the stated purpose of the eviction by occupying the property herself.

Huang told the RTB that she and her daughter had moved into the unit on Aug. 1, 2023, but the RTB arbitrator found insufficient evidence that this was the case, according to the court decision. The arbitrator awarded Stroesser and Lotfizadeh $39,040 in compensation, representing 12 months of their previous rent, plus RTB fees.

The landlord applied for the RTB to reconsider its decision, but that application was denied. Huang then petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court for a judicial review of the RTB decision, arguing that the arbitrator’s decision was patently unreasonable for a variety of reasons.

Justice Jacqueline D. Hughes dismissed the petition, ruling that Huang had presented no basis for finding the RTB decision unreasonable.

Huang argued that the RTB arbitrator had failed to properly interpret or define the term “occupancy,” misunderstood the evidence, imposed an “excessively high” evidentiary burden and failed to provide adequate reasons for her decision.

Hughes rejected each of these arguments.

The judge’s decision reproduces several paragraphs of the RTB decision, including one in which the arbitrator defines the term “vacant possession” and explains that owning a property and leaving it vacant does not meet the legal definition of occupying the property.

Huang argued that this focus on vacant possession amounted to a failure to properly define occupancy, but Hughes disagreed.

“Considered within the context of the arbitrator’s finding that she was not satisfied that the petitioner ever occupied the unit, the arbitrator’s reference to the definition of vacant possession, which is also impermissible in this context, is, in my view, a sufficiently clear indication that she understood the definition of ‘occupy,’” the judge’s decision reads.

On the question of misunderstanding the evidence, Hughes again disagreed with Huang’s argument. The landlord said the arbitrator had failed to consider or disregarded her evidence and testimony, but Hughes found the arbitrator had provided an explanation for why she did so.

Huang’s evidence, according to the decision, “amounted to her own uncorroborated evidence, utility bills, and correspondence indicating she was the new owner of the unit.”

The arbitrator’s decision noted that Huang had “ample time” to prepare for the hearing and gather additional evidence of her occupancy of the condo, such as photos taken inside the home and mail or deliveries sent to the address.

“The arbitrator noted the lack of corroborative documentary evidence and commented on the evidence that could easily have been adduced by the petitioner which, in turn, gave rise to ‘significant doubt’ about the petitioner’s credibility,” Hughes’ decision reads.

“This provides sufficient reasons for the arbitrator rejecting the petitioner’s bare assertion that she occupied the unit.”

The lack of evidence from Huang in support of her case before the RTB was also the basis for Hughes rejecting her arguments about the arbitrator imposing an excessively high burden of proof and providing inadequate reasons.

The landlord pointed to the arbitrator’s comments about a “concerning” lack of evidence as an indication that she was imposing a burden of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is not the standard of proof typically required in civil matters.

“In my view, the effect of the arbitrator’s reasoning in this respect is that she would have expected more evidence of occupancy to meet the usual civil burden of proof, namely proof on a balance of probabilities,” Hughes’ decision reads.

“I find the arbitrator was speaking to the amount or quality of the evidence before her where she found the lack of evidence concerning, not speaking to the burden of proof that she was applying or imposing a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt on the petitioner.”

The judge dismissed the judicial review petition, allowing the RTB decision to stand.

Report an Error
Editorial standards & policies
Why you can trust CTV News

Top Stories

Comments

Post a Comment