Subscribe to our newsletter:
When Abby Leung found an eviction notice on her front door in August of 2024, there were only two words that explained why: “landlord use.” She had been a tenant of her home in Vancouver for over 17 years.
In July 2024, Abby received an above-limit rent increase of 42%, which she refused. One month later, the eviction notice appeared. She believes she was evicted in bad faith and has faced intimidation from the landlord.
Section 49 of B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Act states that a landlord can end a tenancy if they or their family member intend, in good faith, to occupy the rental unit. The burden of proving “good faith” is entirely on the renter. In practice, any landlord can use this reason at any time to remove a tenant.
“I have to find the evidence to prove she is not using the place for herself,” Abby told The North Star. “I find it’s impossible and ridiculous.”
Filing a dispute involves significant paperwork, plus fees that equal at least $100. “I tried to look up information on the website in the beginning [stages of the conflict]. I don’t know what information I need to move forward, and it’s a lot to sift through,” said Abby.
In September, Abby contacted the Vancouver Tenants’ Union (VTU). They helped her assemble evidence to combat the “landlord use” claim.
Abby represented herself at the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) hearing in November 2024. She submitted her evidence on time. Her landlord, who was able to hire a lawyer, submitted evidence at the last minute. The landlord's story had also changed from the initial eviction notice. Now, the landlord claimed that she needed the unit because she had a foot injury.
The adjudicator accepted this new claim even though Abby had no time to refute it, and the RTB hearing concluded in favour of the landlord.
“I don’t understand how they can have a system to set up the tenant to fail and allow the landlord use a loophole to abuse the system,” Abby remarked afterward. Her home was now in serious jeopardy.
Mariah Javadi, an organizer with the VTU, explains that while the RTB is meant to be unbiased, its decisions demonstrate otherwise. Landlords usually have greater access to legal resources than their tenants. If a tenant decides to hire a lawyer to navigate these complex bureaucratic processes, fees can climb as high as $6,000. Meanwhile, some law firms offer pricing packages specifically for landlords and property managers.
Javadi added that many tenants, especially low-income renters, don’t know they have the right to dispute, and they don’t know whether fighting the landlord will be worth the effort:
“We see numbers showing that [the RTB is] more likely to rule in favour of the landlord because they’re more likely to have resources to fight cases in ways that tenants don’t, but also our culture makes landlords more sympathetic [to arbitrators].”
VTU members acted immediately after the RTB hearing, enlisting the help of their contacts to get Abby legal representation. The initial date of the eviction was to be January 31, 2025. A review of the RTB's decision at the Supreme Court of B.C. was set for January 30. There, Abby was represented by a law student. Though the landlord was notified, she did not appear. Abby was granted a two-month stay. Now, she awaits her next court date.
The RTB is not bound by the same rules of jurisprudence as regular courts. Two cases with the same details could go before the same arbitrator and have different outcomes. “It's a kangaroo court,” Javadi remarked. “So much is left up to the whims of the arbitrator.”
An internal RTB report from 2013 showed that 50% of RTB cases that went to the Supreme Court were overturned. In other words, RTB decisions frequently do not stand up to the scrutiny of higher courts. Most tenants, however, do not have the resources to pursue a review of decisions against them.
Data from the RTB shows that disputes over “landlord use” evictions have been on a steep incline. In 2021, it received 1,528 such applications. This number rose to over 2,200 in 2023.
When a landlord issues a “landlord use” eviction to a tenant and succeeds, the landlord or their family member must then occupy that space for at least 12 months. The onus is on the tenant to catch the landlord in a lie if they feel they were evicted “in bad faith.” This might mean scouring marketplace listings or enlisting the help of former neighbours to keep an eye on the place.
The “landlord use” clause is known to the RTB and politicians as a loophole because it is so vague and difficult for tenants to scrutinize. Abby reached out to NDP MLA Christine Boyle to ask about closing this loophole. She also spoke to NDP MLA Mable Elmore. Both representatives committed to addressing this issue with Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon.
However, MLA Boyle’s office told The North Star that the matter was out of their hands and to instead contact Mr. Kahlon’s office. The North Star has not received any comment on this issue from Mr. Kahlon at this time.