Rick Zeller, who's facing eviction, walks toward his apartment entrance in Surrey, B.C, on May 10.Tijana Martin/The Globe and Mail
Renovictions – landlords evicting tenants under the guise of renovating their apartments – are a thing of the past in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland, says Robert Patterson, a lawyer specializing in tenancy law.
About a decade ago, it was not uncommon for tenants living in older apartments to receive eviction notices from landlords who wanted to do updates and then raise the rents.
“Those bad faith renovictions dropped off the face of the earth,” says Mr. Patterson of the Tenant Resource & Advisory Centre. “I can’t remember last time I talked about it with a tenant.”
Landlords can’t evict for a renovation without meeting several criteria, including having all permits and approvals in hand, and even then, it’s not easy, he says. Now, Mr. Patterson wants that same approach used to tackle the landlord-use clause that landlords now overwhelmingly use to evict.
The province has made amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act that would protect both tenants and landlords. Changes, which will take effect this summer, include increasing the notice a landlord must give a tenant when evicting for landlord-use and requiring use of a web portal to serve notice to end tenancy for personal occupancy. Other changes include increasing the time a landlord must occupy the unit after eviction, from six months to a year, and prohibiting evictions for landlord-use in apartment buildings with five or more units.
Mr. Patterson does not dispute that landlords often do legitimately want to occupy their rental unit or allow a family member to occupy it. However, to guard against bad faith behaviour, he’d like to see landlords required to provide a standard of proof in those cases where the tenant challenges the landlord-use clause. In some cases, landlords have won the right to evict without even showing up for hearings, he says. Because there is no standard, and the outcomes are hard to predict, he calls the arbitration process the “wild west,” and not sympathetic to tenant circumstances.
Mr. Patterson says small purpose-built rental apartment buildings are most susceptible to eviction by landlord-use, particularly those around the Broadway corridor.
Rick Zeller and his wife, Jackie Cameron, say they’d like to see the tenancy law changed to make allowance on compassionate grounds. The couple, in their 60s, both have health issues. Ms. Cameron is currently in hospital with a fatal condition and her wish is to live out her remaining days in their Surrey rental condo of 15 years, says Mr. Zeller. However, the condo owner served them with an eviction notice so he can occupy the unit, effective May 31. The year before, they had signed a fixed-term tenancy that required them to leave at the end of May and last July the property manager also notified them that the lease would not be renewed. Mr. Zeller argues that each year for 15 years they had signed a similar fixed-term, one-year, tenancy agreement. The landlord never exercised the option to evict them and they never expected him to. The couple believed that if they didn’t keep signing one-year fixed-term leases, they would be evicted.
In February, they lost their appeal at the Residential Tenancy Branch. With the help of a non-profit legal team, they’ve applied for a review at the B.C. Supreme Court, which they expect will take place in July. They are asking the landlord for one more year at the apartment.
Mr. Zeller hopes that speaking out about their plight will help them find a good-Samaritan landlord with a place for rent.
Zeller says he is worried about his wife Jackie, who has a fatal condition and wishes to live out her remaining days in their apartment.Tijana Martin/The Globe and Mail
“Overall, I’m worried about Jackie, I’m overwhelmed, and tired, and I just want all this to go away. I’m trying to help her as much as I can and give her the life I can for what time she has left,” says Mr. Zeller.
The landlord’s lawyer, Phil Dougan, said he’s negotiating a possible settlement with the couple’s lawyer. If it went to court, the judge would have to find the RTB arbitrator’s decision incredibly flawed to decide in the couple’s favour, said Mr. Dougan. Legally, his client is within his rights to ask them to move out, as agreed; as well, they have been given ample notice, he says.
“I think it’s going to be very hard for the tenants to say anything the adjudicator did was unreasonable because. … I don’t know what it is statistically, but it feels like one in 100 decisions go the landlord’s way and 99 go the tenant’s way, just because of the politics of the whole situation. And of course, I get it: A landlord loses an investment; A tenant loses a home.
“But I mean, the fact that the RTB found at all for the landlord is a bit of a miracle.”
Mr. Dougan may represent landlords as a large part of his practice, but he is also a renter, with five kids at home. Just last summer they had to move out of a rental because his landlord wanted to occupy the house.
“We moved last August, and our rent doubled. We were in the same position as these guys. It was a landlord’s-use [clause], the landlord’s moving back into the house. So, I’ve lived it.”
He believes that as the population ages, we will see more tragic cases involving low-income tenants being displaced. He sees it all the time, including elderly people who can’t afford their strata fees. As well, the fixed-term tenancies are confusing for both tenant and landlord, which adds to the problem, he says.
“These poor people,” he says of the couple. “I mean it’s such an awful, awful situation. You wouldn’t wish it on anybody.
“My job is, unfortunately, where the rubber hits the road. If we had an endless supply of social housing, there wouldn’t be a problem. But we have a very, very limited supply of social housing. It’s a battle.”
He said that landlord-use clauses are happening because it’s the only reason left that a landlord could take back the property and maintain control in case they want to occupy it.
“It’s about the only reason you can give any more. That’s why it’s so popular.”
He suggests the government apply harsher penalties to bad-faith landlords who evict with no intention of occupying. Right now, a landlord could be looking at 12 months’ rent as a penalty if they don’t move in within six months. He saw one case where the landlord had to pay $150,000 in penalties because they failed to move in. But a higher penalty would be even more of a deterrent.
Mr. Dougan teaches a relicensing course for property managers for the B.C. Financial Services Authority, and he has asked his class if any of them see renovictions any more. He says he’s only heard of one case out of hundreds.
He cautions, however, that if rules are too punitive for landlords, then they will get out of the rental business entirely, which he’s also seeing.