A Kelowna landlord will have to pay her former tenants $27,424 for a wrongful eviction, according to a court decision published online this week.
Jane Li first tried to evict her tenants Tina and Scott MacLean from the Rutland neighbourhood property she owned and they had resided in since 2020.
They were paying $2,200 a month in rent for the McPhee Street house at the time of the eviction, Justice C. Richard Hewson wrote in a decision published online this week.
The couple filed a dispute after that eviction notice and were able to stay.
Then, in December 2023, Li served a second eviction notice, this time stating that she was going to occupy the unit.
The MacLeans were given until February to move out, and this time they did.
Afterward, however, Hewson said that the MacLeans were dubious of the claim, and brought their case to the Residential Tenancy Branch.
“Mr. and Ms. MacLean came to believe that Ms. Li had not occupied the unit after they vacated it,” Hewson said.
“They filed an application for compensation from Ms. Li. They alleged that the landlord had failed to accomplish the purpose stated on the notice.”
Li, Hewson said, had the burden of proving that she moved into the unit and occupied it for at least six months after the eviction — with an exception for “extenuating circumstances.”
She didn’t meet that burden and was ordered to pay her former tenants the equivalent of 12 months of rent, plus fees.
That was about $27,424.
Li then unsuccessfully filed an application to review consideration, and an arbitrator decision was released in December 2024.
“I find that the landlord’s testimony regarding where she was living and when and why she was absent from the property under dispute throughout the six months following the end of the tenancy was inconsistent and contradictory and therefore lacks credibility,” the arbitrator wrote.
“I find, on the other hand, that the tenants’ testimony was consistent and credible,” the arbitrator wrote.
Li then sought a judicial review on the grounds that the decision was “patently unreasonable” and ought to be overturned or sent back to to the Rental Tenancy Branch for reconsideration.
Overturning the decision would require the Hewson to determine it was “openly, clearly, evidently unreasonable” based on the evidence presented to the arbitrator, Hewson said.
His job he pointed out, was not re-litigating the dispute.
In this case, Li’s evidence that there were extenuating circumstances, namely that she had to leave B.C. for medical treatment, was unsupported by documentation.
It was also contradicted by the the couple’s evidence that Li said she planned to sell the property because she didn't want to be a landlord anymore, according to the judge.
“I am satisfied that the decision that there were no extenuating circumstances and to award compensation to (the tenants) was not patently unreasonable,” Hewson said.
There have been several cases of this kind in recent months, including this one from Vernon.
