Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The sufficiency and effect of the plaintiff’s notice to terminate her tenancy and whether it complied with statutory requirements.

• The existence of any defamatory statements in the August 23, 2021 email and the applicability of the defence of qualified privilege.

• The factual basis and legal merit of the plaintiff’s claim of being illegally locked out of her apartment.

• The credibility and admissibility of the plaintiff’s evidence and submissions.

• The appropriateness of declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant under the Supreme Court Act.

• The entitlement of the defendants to costs and the scale at which such costs should be awarded.

Facts of the case

Cheryl Ann Stein, the plaintiff, was a tenant at the Birch Apartment in Vancouver, managed by Pacific Asset Management Corporation (PAMC) and owned by Sylton Holding Management Company Ltd. In July 2021, while Stein was hospitalized following a head injury, she sent a text message to the building caretaker, Becky Lund, stating her intention to terminate her tenancy effective July 31, 2021. The landlord and building management accepted this as notice to end her tenancy. However, Stein’s belongings, including her cat, remained in the apartment after her departure. During her absence, her cat died, and Stein claimed she lost her keys and was unable to access her unit upon her return in August 2021.

Stein’s attempts to regain access led to disturbances in the building, prompting complaints from other tenants and police involvement. On August 23, 2021, the building manager, Rany Ratushny, emailed all tenants, advising them not to provide access to Stein and to contact police if they felt unsafe. Stein alleged this email was defamatory. The landlord also pursued proceedings before the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) to confirm the end of the tenancy and recover unpaid rent. The RTB ultimately found that Stein’s notice did not comply with statutory requirements, allowing her tenancy to continue, but also ordered her to pay increased rent arrears.

Stein filed multiple applications with the RTB for damages related to the alleged lockout, homelessness, and other grievances, most of which were dismissed or resolved without substantial findings in her favor. In July 2023, Stein commenced this civil action, alleging illegal lockout, defamation, negligence regarding her cat’s death, emotional distress, and other claims, seeking millions in damages and a lien against the property.

Legal claims and defences

The main legal claims advanced by Stein were defamation (regarding the August 23 email) and damages for being allegedly locked out of her apartment. She also referenced numerous statutes, including the Residential Tenancy Act, Human Rights Code, and others, but the court found only the defamation and lockout claims were properly pleaded. The defendants sought summary dismissal of the action, arguing that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that Stein’s litigation conduct was vexatious.

Analysis of the court

The court found that the facts and legal issues were straightforward and suitable for summary trial. On the defamation claim, the court held that the August 23 email was not defamatory in its context, as it accurately relayed police advice and was a measured response to tenant complaints. Even if the email were considered defamatory, it was protected by qualified privilege, as the communication was made in good faith to a limited group with a reciprocal interest in the information. There was no evidence of malice.

Regarding the lockout claim, the court found no evidence that the defendants had changed the locks or actively prevented Stein from accessing her apartment. The court noted that Stein’s own actions, including her notice to terminate and loss of keys, were the primary reasons for her lack of access. The court also gave little weight to critical comments made by the RTB arbitrator, as the supporting evidence was not before the court.

Outcome and costs

The court dismissed Stein’s action in its entirety, finding her claims to be without merit and unsupported by admissible evidence. The court declared Stein a vexatious litigant, barring her from commencing further proceedings against the defendants without leave of the court. The defendants were awarded costs at Scale B, but the exact monetary amount was not specified and would be determined according to the standard cost assessment process if not agreed upon. No damages were awarded to the plaintiff.