A British Columbia judge has reversed an arbitrator's ruling that awarded a tenant $25,000 after a landlord claimed her son had moved into the rental unit following the tenant's eviction. Under the province's Residential Tenancy Act, landlords can evict tenants if they or a family member intend to occupy the property. If the landlord or family member does not move in within a reasonable time and fails to reside there for at least 12 months, they must compensate the evicted tenant with 12 months' rent.

In a decision issued on November 14, Supreme Court Justice Wendy Baker examined the circumstances surrounding the original ruling by the residential tenancy branch. In January, landlord Feng Ying Yu issued a notice to tenant Amber Carreiro, stating that her son would be moving into the property effective May 31. Carreiro vacated the unit early, on March 28. Following her departure, the landlord hired a painter to prepare the rental unit, with work taking place from April 14 to May 8. The landlord's son reportedly moved in on May 9.

During the hearing, Carreiro indicated that she had moved out early to accommodate the landlord's son. However, she also claimed to have heard from others that no one had moved into the unit after her departure, and that furniture was brought in around May 27. In response, the landlord provided a gas bill in her son's name for the period from April 9 to April 28, as well as a hydro bill dated April 29.

The arbitrator dismissed the landlord's evidence, stating that the son's testimony was "limited and vague" and that the bills did not support the claim of a timely move-in. The arbitrator also noted the absence of photographs of the furnished property and a lack of move-in documentation or witness statements from neighbors that could corroborate the landlord's account. Consequently, the arbitrator awarded Carreiro $25,444.

In her ruling, Justice Baker expressed "significant concerns" regarding the arbitrator's reasoning. She criticized the arbitrator for failing to properly assess the evidence and for suggesting that the landlord should have provided additional proof. Baker emphasized that the effective date of the eviction notice was May 31, making Carreiro's early departure irrelevant to the timeline for the landlord's son to move in.

The law stipulates that a landlord or family member must occupy the property within a reasonable time and remain there for at least 12 months to avoid paying the tenant. Baker pointed out that only weeks had passed between the eviction notice's effective date and the hearing, making it impossible for the landlord's son to fulfill the second requirement.

Baker concluded that the arbitrator's decision was "clearly irrational" and ultimately overturned the original ruling. She declined to send the case back to the tenancy branch and ordered the tenant to cover the landlord's legal costs.