Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute focused on whether a landlord could terminate a daycare tenant’s lease under s. 49(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) to allow the landlord’s son to live in the property, despite planned three-month renovations before move-in.

• The tenant argued that because substantial renovations were contemplated, the landlord could only proceed under s. 49.2 RTA (renovation-based termination), not under s. 49(3) (landlord’s or family member’s occupation).

• A central evidentiary issue was whether the landlord’s son genuinely intended to occupy the property as his primary residence within a “reasonable period” and for at least 12 months, given his ties to China and the anticipated time out of Canada.

• The tenant challenged the landlord’s good faith, alleging the true motive was to avoid the municipal empty homes tax rather than to genuinely occupy the residence.

• The court held that not all renovations trigger s. 49.2, that a short renovation period can be consistent with valid termination under s. 49(3), and that “reasonable period” for occupation depends on the circumstances.

• Giving deference to the trial judge’s factual findings, the court upheld the conclusion that the landlord’s son had a bona fide plan to move in, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed that the landlord validly terminated the lease, with no specific damages amount determined.

Facts and background of the case
Mohammad Osama, the appellant, operated a daycare from a residential property in Vancouver that he leased from the respondent landlord, Xiao Ying Jiang. The lease incorporated key provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act, including that termination could only occur for reasons and in the manner provided by the statute. In late June 2024, the landlord served a two-month notice to end the tenancy, effective September 1, 2024, citing s. 49(3) RTA on the basis that her son intended in good faith to occupy the rental unit. The tenant responded by commencing an action seeking declarations that the notice was void and that the lease remained in force. He argued that the landlord’s son, a visitor to Canada, did not truly intend to “occupy” the unit within the meaning of s. 49(3), particularly because the plan was to undertake about three months of renovations before any move-in. He also asserted that any claimed intention to occupy was driven by a desire to avoid the empty homes tax. The trial judge rejected these arguments, found the termination valid, and ordered Mr. Osama to vacate the premises within 60 days.

Statutory framework and key legal issues
The dispute centred on the interaction between two RTA provisions. Section 49(3) allows a landlord to end a tenancy where the landlord or a close family member intends in good faith to occupy the rental unit. Section 49.2, by contrast, governs applications to end tenancies to complete certain types of renovations or repairs, subject to specific criteria such as necessity to prolong or sustain the rental unit’s use and the need for vacancy. The tenant contended that because renovations were planned, the landlord was required to proceed under s. 49.2, not s. 49(3), and that this failure invalidated the notice. A further issue concerned timing: the tenant argued that “occupy” and the related 12-month requirement meant the landlord’s son had to actively live in the unit on an ongoing basis for a consecutive 12-month period, which he said was inconsistent with the son’s expected absences from Canada. Good faith was also in dispute, with the tenant claiming the landlord’s real objective was to avoid the empty homes tax, not to house her son.

Appellate analysis of renovations, timing, and good faith
On appeal, the court held that not every renovation situation falls within s. 49.2. That section is limited to renovations or repairs necessary to prolong or sustain the use of the rental unit or building, and there is nothing in the wording or legislative history to suggest that a landlord seeking to move in themselves or house a close family member must always proceed under s. 49.2 merely because some renovations are planned. The court accepted that the statute, read as a whole, contemplates that occupation under s. 49(3) need only occur within a “reasonable period” after the effective date of the notice, not necessarily immediately, and noted that any failure to occupy within that reasonable period could trigger tenant compensation under s. 51. In this case, the trial judge had found, based on detailed evidence of the contemplated work, that the three-month renovation period was reasonable and that the landlord’s son genuinely intended to move in and make the residence his primary home. The court emphasized that these are factual findings entitled to deference and that no palpable and overriding error was shown. Regarding good faith, the court agreed that seeking to avoid an empty homes tax by genuinely occupying the property is not dishonest: the key statutory question is whether there is a bona fide intention to occupy, which the trial judge had found in favour of the landlord.

Outcome and orders of the court
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial decision that the landlord had validly terminated the tenancy under s. 49(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act. The respondent, landlord Xiao Ying Jiang, was therefore the successful party, and the order requiring the appellant, Mohammad Osama, to give vacant possession remained in force. Although the tenant had originally sought a lengthy delay in eviction to minimize disruption to the daycare, the court instead ordered that the 60-day period to vacate would run from the date of the appellate decision, to allow time for parents and staff to make alternative arrangements. No specific damages or monetary award was determined or quantified in this judgment; the relief focused on possession and timing rather than on a sum of money.