Home | Process | Checklist | Learnings | Resources | Glossary
The official government office that handles issues around residential tenancies within the province of British Columbia.
A non-profit organization that provides free legal education and services, created and offered by legal professionals.
A tenant-run union that focuses on organizing tenants and pushing for positive legislative change.
Here are a few BC Supreme Court Cases that I have seen referenced by tenants and/or landlords in ARI-C cases, including a simplified explanation as I understand it and the usually referenced paragraphs.
Because the Residential Tenancy Act was designed to protect tenants, ambiguities in the phrasing of the Residential Tenancy Act (and by relation, the Residential Tenancy Regulation) should be resolved in favour of the tenant.
[11] I start from the accepted rules of statutory interpretation. I conclude that the Act is a statute which seeks to confer a benefit or protection upon tenants. Were it not for the Act, tenants would have only the benefit of notice of termination provided by the common law. In other words, while the Act seeks to balance the rights of landlords and tenants, it provides a benefit to tenants which would not otherwise exist. In these circumstances, ambiguity in language should be resolved in favour of the persons in that benefited group: See (Canada Attorney General) v. Abrahams, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2: Henricks v. Hebert, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2745 (QL)(SC) at para. 55:
I think it is accepted that one of the overriding purposes of prescribing statutory terms of tenancy, over and above specifically empowering residential tenants against the perceived superior strength of landlords, was to introduce order and consistency to an area where agreements were often vague, uncertain or non-existent on important matters, and remedies were relatively difficult to obtain.
When a policy guideline is out of alignment with the legislation it is referencing, either in general or in a specific instance, the legislation prevails.
[91] In my view, Policy #40.00 is unreasonable because, at a very fundamental level, it misconstrues the statute.
Inconsistency in the relevance or application of a guideline must be explained to ensure a procedurally fair and unbiased result.
[81] Thus, while accepting that the Arbitrator’s reasons need not meet the standards of superior court or even other administrative tribunals (like the Labour Relations Board or the Human Rights Tribunal), the minimal standards of explaining how and why a conclusion was reached must still be met. The conclusory nature of the Arbitrator’s reasons and the absence of any explanation for how and why the any limit on extended absences runs afoul of the wording of s. 28(c) is a defect that appears on the face of the reasons and is both immediate and obvious. Based on the authorities cited above, including those relating to a patently unreasonable standard of review, as well as my review of the Arbitrator’s decision and the record that was before her, I find that her reasons do not meet the minimal standard required to explain her decision and that decision is therefore patently unreasonable.
Arbitrators are not required to make the same decision as another arbitrator in a similar case, but they often will when presented with similar facts and asked for similar outcomes.
[25] In the original decision in this case before Arbitrator Nadler, the quotation from a decision by Arbitrator Miller in file No. 775605 is to the same effect. While such decisions are not precedential, and each arbitrator is free to decide on his or her own interpretation, consistency in the approach to a particular right or provision may be of assistance in determining the reasonableness of a given outcome.
When my building was served our notice, this legislation was so new that there were no past decisions related to ARI-Cs. Now, there are! These documents can help with figuring out legal arguments and providing guidance on what to do (or not do) throughout the process.
The RTB has two places where you can look up past decisions. “ARI-C” is a good search term to start with, however you can also add others, like “parkade”, if you’re looking for something more specific.
If you have questions about the “Dispute Codes” in decisions, a list of their meanings is available from Courthouse Libraries BC.
Disclaimer
This site has been created by tenants, for tenants, to help them fight against improper applications and ineligible expenditures. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. It is provided for informational purposes only, and will always be evolving.
See something that’s incorrect? Is there something that you think should be added? Do you have questions for a fellow tenant? Email me at [email protected]!