Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether the landlords lawfully ended the tenancy for personal use under s. 51(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act.

• RTB awarded the tenant 12 months' rent compensation, finding the termination was not in good faith.

• Landlords sought judicial review, claiming procedural unfairness due to exclusion of key evidence (e.g., photos, neighbour letters).

• Supreme Court found RTB decisions patently unreasonable and procedurally unfair, remitting the matter for a new hearing.

• Appellant failed to meet multiple court filing deadlines for his appeal, citing health and formatting issues.

• Court of Appeal dismissed his application to extend time, concluding no legal error in the lower court’s refusal.

Facts of the Case

Akm Matiul Alam, a residential tenant, was evicted from his home after his landlords, Sophie Leung and William Lien, claimed they needed to occupy the property for personal use. The landlords had recently purchased the property, triggering a clause under section 49 of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), S.B.C. 2002, c. 78, which allows landlords to end tenancies if they or a close family member intend to move in.

However, after the eviction, the landlords did not move in as planned. Instead, they re-rented the property about a year later. Mr. Alam filed a complaint with the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB), arguing that the eviction was not in good faith and therefore unlawful.

The RTB adjudicator agreed with Alam, awarding him 12 months’ rent in compensation ($43,300) under section 51(2) of the RTA, which provides for such compensation if a landlord ends a tenancy for personal use but does not move in or fails to occupy the property for the minimum required time.

Leung and Lien attempted to introduce evidence—such as photographs and letters from neighbors—to show they did, in fact, move in. The adjudicator refused to admit this new evidence, prompting the landlords to seek judicial review of both the compensation award and the procedural decisions.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

On judicial review, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found the RTB’s handling of the case to be procedurally unfair and its decisions patently unreasonable. The court overturned the compensation ruling and ordered a new hearing before the RTB.

Mr. Alam, acting without a lawyer, filed an appeal of the Supreme Court decision. However, his appeal was mired in procedural delays. He repeatedly missed deadlines to file necessary documents (such as the appeal record, appeal book, and factum), citing personal health issues and formatting difficulties.

While some extensions were granted, the final deadline passed without submission. When Mr. Alam sought yet another extension, Justice Griffin of the Court of Appeal refused, finding that:

• His explanations for delay were unsubstantiated or insufficient;

• The multiple extensions already granted demonstrated leniency;

• The interests of justice and the need for finality outweighed any justification for further delay.

The Court of Appeal, in reviewing that decision, found no legal error or misapprehension of the facts. Justice Winteringham, writing for the panel, emphasized that appellate rules must be respected and noted that residential tenancy cases are expected to proceed expeditiously.

Outcome

The application to vary the extension refusal was dismissed, and Mr. Alam’s appeal was officially marked as abandoned. However, since the lower court had already ordered a new RTB hearing, Alam was not left without a legal remedy—he will have another opportunity to present his case before the RTB.