A Coquitlam landlord must pay more than $36,000 to his former tenants after the B.C. Supreme Court upheld a Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) ruling that he took too long to move into the home he claimed for personal use.
In a June 6 decision, Justice Sheila Tucker dismissed Harjinder Bhangal’s petition for a judicial review, ruling the RTB arbitrator’s finding – that Bhangal failed to comply with statutory timelines after issuing an eviction notice – was not patently unreasonable.
“The arbitrator properly recognized that the amount of time that might be considered reasonable in any given case would necessarily reflect the particular circumstances,” Tucker stated in the ruling.
The case stemmed from Bhangal evicting Louis and Mary DeSousa, who had been renting the upper portion of the Coquitlam home for $3,000 a month.
On Dec. 31, 2021, Bhangal served the DeSousas with notice to end the tenancy, stating he intended to use the property so close family members can move in. They agreed to vacate the property by April 30, 2022.
But after the DeSousas moved out, Bhangal did not immediately take occupancy. He testified that he waited to move in until mid-July – nearly 75 days later – because he wanted to replace the carpets first. He claimed the work was delayed due to construction material shortages and pandemic-related disruptions, and said he completed the work himself while also managing other business responsibilities.
The DeSousas filed a complaint with the RTB, arguing that the delay in occupancy violated the Residential Tenancy Act, which requires landlords to move in “within a reasonable period” and stay at least six months.
In a September 2023 decision, the arbitrator agreed with the tenants and ordered Bhangal to pay $36,100 – equal to 12 months’ rents plus their filing fee.
The arbitrator found Bhangal’s two-and-a-half-month delay to be unreasonably long and rejected his explanations as too vague.
Guidelines cited in the rulings state that a reasonable move-in period is usually around 15 days, though slight extensions may be reasonable in specific cases, such as full carpet replacement. However, the arbitrator ruled that Bhangal failed to show the delay was justified.
At the Supreme Court hearing, Bhangal argued the arbitrator failed to apply a proper legal test and ignored his evidence about pandemic complications and his personal circumstances.
Justice Tucker disagreed, noting the arbitrator cited the applicable policy guideline, acknowledged the context, and concluded Bhangal’s evidence – including his claims about doing the work himself and managing other business ventures – was vague and insufficient.
Tucker also rejected the argument that the arbitrator ignored key evidence. While the landlord claimed his testimony was overlooked, the judge noted the arbitrator had explicitly referred to his comments about pandemic delays, and that no further specific or credible details had been provided.
“I am satisfied that (the arbitrator’) finding . . . is properly understood as a comment on all of the testimony proffered by the landlord,” Tucker determined. “Just as the landlord failed to explain how and why the pandemic posed any particular difficulties, he did not, for example, explain why he did the replacement himself or how he was prioritizing his time.”
Tucker dismissed the petition for a judicial review. The RTB order remains in force.
Thumbnail photo credit: John Deacon
