B.C. attorney general reinforces landlord's argument in court case involving eviction of senior from Vancouver apartment

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld the eviction of a long-term tenant from his apartment on Selkirk Street.

      And the landlord, Bakonyi Holdings Ltd., was assisted in court by Attorney General David Eby, who was once an advocate for tenants when he worked at the Pivot Legal Society.

      The case first went before B.C. Supreme Court last year when Ed Seignoret filed a judicial-review petition objecting to the decision of a residential tenancy branch arbitrator.

      He's a pensioner who had been living in his suite since 1991, paying $1,045 per month.

      Seignoret alleged that the arbitrator was biased and had "misapprehended a document" he had filed.

      Plus, he wanted to introduce new evidence—namely that the landlord had offered to continue the tenancy if, on 24 hours' notice, a pest control company or the fire department would certify that the suite had passed a test.

      The arbitrator, however, concluded that Seignoret had "backed out of the deal", according to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling, contributing to his eviction.

      B.C. Supreme Court Justice R. Crawford ruled that the arbitrator was not biased and that the decision was not "patently unreasonable". As a result, Crawford refused to order a new hearing.

      "It is not clear to me why a person who is said to be a pensioner has his apartment stacked with boxes of paper," Crawford wrote in the decision. "It is apparent (if he has not already done so) he will need time to clear the apartment."

      Seignoret represented himself in B.C. Supreme Court. He then appealed to the province's highest court, this time represented by lawyers.

      They argued in the B.C. Court of Appeal that a provision in the Law and Equity Act should be grounds for setting aside the order of possession, even though this wasn't initially brought forward before the residential tenancy branch.

      At this point, the attorney general got involved, with one of his representatives filing written submissions opposing this.

      "The Attorney General supports the landlord’s position," wrote Justice Peter Willcock in a ruling dismissing Seignoret's appeal. "He supplements the landlord’s argument, in particular, in relation to two questions."

      First, the attorney general maintained that even where the Residential Tenancy Act gives power to the Supreme Court to issue a ruling instead of the director of the branch, this authority is limited to the question of what relief is available. 

      Secondly, the attorney general claimed that the Law and Equity Act's provisions for equitable relief from forefeiture would "supplant the law" if it was applied to tenancy disputes.

      "He argues the legislative scheme addresses situations which formerly, under common law, would have led to an unconscionable and unjust result and warranted the intervention of equity," Willcock wrote. "He says the Legislature has removed the common law rights of both landlords and tenants because landlords’ rights of forfeiture are subject to legislative constraints and tenants are bound to a specific process by which to seek relief from forfeiture."

      Willcock's decision to dismiss the senior's appeal was supported by two other justices: Gail Dickson and James Fitch.

      Comments