Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Procedural fairness in the service and receipt of notice under the Residential Tenancy Act was central to the dispute.

• The sufficiency of evidence regarding the landlord’s actual receipt of the tenants’ forwarding address was contested.

• Application of statutory deeming provisions for service and their rebuttal by contrary evidence was examined.

• The appropriateness of the Direct Request process, which allows decisions without a hearing, was questioned.

• The standard of review for administrative tribunal decisions, including patent unreasonableness and procedural fairness, was analyzed.

• The ability of self-represented parties to have their substantive issues properly considered by administrative adjudicators was highlighted.

Facts of the case

Mohammadreza Rasolroveicy, the landlord, filed a petition seeking judicial review of two decisions made by the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) of British Columbia. The dispute began when tenants Caroline Adams and Jamie Campbell sought the return of double their security deposit under section 38.1 of the Residential Tenancy Act. The tenants alleged that the landlord failed to return the deposit or file an application to retain it within the statutory period after receiving their forwarding address. The RTB arbitrator, Campbell, issued a Merits Decision on August 7, 2025, in favor of the tenants, awarding them $2,923.12. The landlord did not participate in the RTB proceedings, claiming he was unaware of the dispute due to being out of the country and not receiving proper notice.

Procedural background and policy terms

After the Merits Decision, the landlord applied for reconsideration, asserting he had not received notice of the dispute and was unable to respond. This application was dismissed by Arbitrator Doyon on August 12, 2025, in the Review Decision. The landlord then filed for judicial review on August 27, 2025. The Director of the RTB, responding to the petition, clarified that the correct respondent should be the Director rather than the Attorney General or the RTB itself. The case involved interpretation and application of several provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act, including sections 38.1 (Direct Request process), 88 (service of forwarding address), 89 and 90 (service by mail and deemed receipt), and 81 (grounds for review). The Direct Request process allows for a monetary order without a hearing if the landlord does not act within 15 days of receiving the tenants’ forwarding address. The arbitrators relied on statutory deeming provisions to conclude that notice was properly given, but the landlord argued he did not actually receive the relevant documents due to being abroad.

Judicial review and legal analysis

The Supreme Court of British Columbia considered whether the RTB arbitrators had provided procedural fairness, particularly regarding the landlord’s opportunity to rebut the presumption of service and to present evidence that he did not receive the tenants’ forwarding address. The court noted that procedural fairness is especially important in administrative proceedings involving self-represented parties and significant financial consequences. The judge found that the Review Decision failed to address the landlord’s core argument about lack of notice and the new evidence he wished to present. Similarly, the Merits Decision was found to be procedurally unfair because the landlord was not given an opportunity to challenge the deemed receipt of notice or to address whether he actually received the forwarding address, which was critical to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under section 38.1 of the Act.

Outcome and final orders

The court set aside both the Merits Decision and the Review Decision, remitting the dispute to the Residential Tenancy Branch for a new hearing. The Attorney General and the RTB were removed as respondents and replaced with the Director of the RTB. No order for costs was made, and the previous monetary award of $2,923.12 in favor of the tenants was set aside pending the new hearing. As a result, there is currently no successful party and no enforceable monetary award or costs, with the matter to be determined afresh by the RTB.