Dispute Resolution in Residential Tenancies (19:XII) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:38, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:38:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~13 August~~ 2025}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 25 June 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = landlord}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = landlord}}

LSLAP: /* D. Review of Arbitrator’s Decision */

2025-10-01T01:16:24Z

D. Review of Arbitrator’s Decision

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:16, 1 October 2025
Line 305:		Line 305:
	'''NOTE''': There is a filing fee, which cannot be recovered, but which can be waived under the same circumstances for which the original application fee can be waived.		'''NOTE''': There is a filing fee, which cannot be recovered, but which can be waived under the same circumstances for which the original application fee can be waived.

	'''NOTE''': ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc426/2015bcsc426.html?autocompleteStr=2015%20BCSC%20426&autocompletePos=1 Martin v. Barnett]'', 2015 BCSC 426 stands for the principle that a party must exhaust statutory review procedures before bringing an application for judicial review, but where the RTB does not have the power on reconsideration to encompass the alleged error (i.e. where the alleged error does not fall within one of the three grounds for Review Consideration described above), then reconsideration cannot be considered an adequate alternative to judicial review, and a party is permitted to proceed directly to judicial review. Where the error does fall within the reconsideration power of the RTB, the party must bring a reconsideration application. If they are dissatisfied with that result, a party can judicially review the review consideration decision. [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc353/2019bcsc353.html ''Wang v. Hou'', 2019 CBC 353] adds that procedural fairness issues that cannot be raised on reconsideration can be the basis for independent judicial review of both original decisions and review consideration decisions if either raise procedural fairness issues.		'''NOTE''': ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc426/2015bcsc426.html?autocompleteStr=2015%20BCSC%20426&autocompletePos=1 Martin v. Barnett]'', 2015 BCSC 426 stands for the principle that a party must exhaust statutory review procedures before bringing an application for judicial review, but where the RTB does not have the power on reconsideration to encompass the alleged error (i.e. where the alleged error does not fall within one of the three grounds for Review Consideration described above), then reconsideration cannot be considered an adequate alternative to judicial review, and a party is permitted to proceed directly to judicial review. Where the error does fall within the reconsideration power of the RTB, the party must bring a reconsideration application. If they are dissatisfied with that result, a party can judicially review the review consideration decision. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc353/2019bcsc353.html Wang v. Hou]'', 2019 CBC 353 adds that procedural fairness issues that cannot be raised on reconsideration can be the basis for independent judicial review of both original decisions and review consideration decisions if either raise procedural fairness issues.

	=== 2. Time Limits for Starting a Review Consideration ===		=== 2. Time Limits for Starting a Review Consideration ===

LSLAP: /* d) Late Evidence */

2025-10-01T01:15:36Z

d) Late Evidence

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:15, 1 October 2025
Line 143:		Line 143:
	==== d) Late Evidence ====		==== d) Late Evidence ====

	Rule 3.17 requires that both parties must have the opportunity to be heard on the question of prejudice arising from accepting late evidence. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2020/2020bcsc555/2020bcsc555.html?resultIndex=1 ''Khan v Savino'', 2020 BCSC 555], the applicant was late to the 14-day deadline by one day but the arbitrator failed to seek submissions regarding prejudice arising from accepting the late evidence from both parties at the hearing. This was a ground for voiding the result at the dispute resolution and returning the decision to the RTB for re-determination.		Rule 3.17 requires that both parties must have the opportunity to be heard on the question of prejudice arising from accepting late evidence. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2020/2020bcsc555/2020bcsc555.html?resultIndex=1 Khan v Savino]'', 2020 BCSC 555, the applicant was late to the 14-day deadline by one day but the arbitrator failed to seek submissions regarding prejudice arising from accepting the late evidence from both parties at the hearing. This was a ground for voiding the result at the dispute resolution and returning the decision to the RTB for re-determination.

	==== e) Witness Statements ====		==== e) Witness Statements ====

LSLAP: /* 1. Application for Review of Arbitrator's Decision */

2025-09-29T15:17:43Z

1. Application for Review of Arbitrator's Decision

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 29 September 2025
Line 305:		Line 305:
	'''NOTE''': There is a filing fee, which cannot be recovered, but which can be waived under the same circumstances for which the original application fee can be waived.		'''NOTE''': There is a filing fee, which cannot be recovered, but which can be waived under the same circumstances for which the original application fee can be waived.

	'''NOTE''': [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc426/2015bcsc426.html?autocompleteStr=2015%20BCSC%20426&autocompletePos=1 ''Martin v. Barnett'', 2015 BCSC 426] stands for the principle that a party must exhaust statutory review procedures before bringing an application for judicial review, but where the RTB does not have the power on reconsideration to encompass the alleged error (i.e. where the alleged error does not fall within one of the three grounds for Review Consideration described above), then reconsideration cannot be considered an adequate alternative to judicial review, and a party is permitted to proceed directly to judicial review. Where the error does fall within the reconsideration power of the RTB, the party must bring a reconsideration application. If they are dissatisfied with that result, a party can judicially review the review consideration decision. [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc353/2019bcsc353.html ''Wang v. Hou'', 2019 CBC 353] adds that procedural fairness issues that cannot be raised on reconsideration can be the basis for independent judicial review of both original decisions and review consideration decisions if either raise procedural fairness issues.		'''NOTE''': ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc426/2015bcsc426.html?autocompleteStr=2015%20BCSC%20426&autocompletePos=1 Martin v. Barnett]'', 2015 BCSC 426 stands for the principle that a party must exhaust statutory review procedures before bringing an application for judicial review, but where the RTB does not have the power on reconsideration to encompass the alleged error (i.e. where the alleged error does not fall within one of the three grounds for Review Consideration described above), then reconsideration cannot be considered an adequate alternative to judicial review, and a party is permitted to proceed directly to judicial review. Where the error does fall within the reconsideration power of the RTB, the party must bring a reconsideration application. If they are dissatisfied with that result, a party can judicially review the review consideration decision. [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc353/2019bcsc353.html ''Wang v. Hou'', 2019 CBC 353] adds that procedural fairness issues that cannot be raised on reconsideration can be the basis for independent judicial review of both original decisions and review consideration decisions if either raise procedural fairness issues.

	=== 2. Time Limits for Starting a Review Consideration ===		=== 2. Time Limits for Starting a Review Consideration ===

LSLAP: /* 2. Arbitrators */

2025-09-29T15:17:17Z

2. Arbitrators

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 29 September 2025
Line 26:		Line 26:
	=== 2. Arbitrators ===		=== 2. Arbitrators ===

	Arbitrators are like judges and base their decisions on evidence and arguments presented by the parties at the dispute resolution hearing. Arbitrators are only bound by legal precedent established by the court; past RTB decisions are not binding but may be persuasive The RTB’s Policy Guidelines are more strongly persuasive albeit not fully binding ([https://canlii.ca/t/gv0gr#par33 ''Powell v British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Branch)'', 2016 BCSC 1835] at para 33).		Arbitrators are like judges and base their decisions on evidence and arguments presented by the parties at the dispute resolution hearing. Arbitrators are only bound by legal precedent established by the court; past RTB decisions are not binding but may be persuasive The RTB’s Policy Guidelines are more strongly persuasive albeit not fully binding (''[https://canlii.ca/t/gv0gr#par33 Powell v British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Branch)]'', 2016 BCSC 1835 at para 33).

	Arbitrators are not required to have any formal legal training, though some may. Students intending to make legal arguments should be prepared to do so using as much plain language as possible, but should take care to specifically refer to all relevant law, regulation and policy, and apply those to the facts.		Arbitrators are not required to have any formal legal training, though some may. Students intending to make legal arguments should be prepared to do so using as much plain language as possible, but should take care to specifically refer to all relevant law, regulation and policy, and apply those to the facts.

LSLAP: /* 1. Disputes Covered by Dispute Resolution */

2025-09-29T15:16:55Z

1. Disputes Covered by Dispute Resolution

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 29 September 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:
	If a participant’s monetary claim is over the applicable limit, they can bring the dispute into the RTB’s jurisdiction by abandoning the amount that exceeds the limit (''RTA'', s 58(2.2)).		If a participant’s monetary claim is over the applicable limit, they can bring the dispute into the RTB’s jurisdiction by abandoning the amount that exceeds the limit (''RTA'', s 58(2.2)).

	Some issues that may apparently be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the ''RTA'' may still be grounded in a different source of law. In such cases, a tenant may be able to elect to proceed with their claim either as an RTB dispute or as a different kind of civil claim that falls under the inherent jurisdiction of another court. For example, if a tenant’s claim can be successfully characterized as a claim in negligence, they may be permitted to proceed with an action in Supreme Court. See [https://canlii.ca/t/j0c9c#par23 ''Janus v The Central Park Citizen Society'', 2019 BCCA 173] at paras 23-29.		Some issues that may apparently be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the ''RTA'' may still be grounded in a different source of law. In such cases, a tenant may be able to elect to proceed with their claim either as an RTB dispute or as a different kind of civil claim that falls under the inherent jurisdiction of another court. For example, if a tenant’s claim can be successfully characterized as a claim in negligence, they may be permitted to proceed with an action in Supreme Court. See ''[https://canlii.ca/t/j0c9c#par23 Janus v The Central Park Citizen Society]'', 2019 BCCA 173 at paras 23-29.

	=== 2. Arbitrators ===		=== 2. Arbitrators ===

LSLAP: /* E. Enforcing the Arbitrator’s Order */

2025-09-22T11:07:47Z

E. Enforcing the Arbitrator’s Order

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 22 September 2025
Line 342:		Line 342:
	== E. Enforcing the Arbitrator’s Order ==		== E. Enforcing the Arbitrator’s Order ==

	NOTE: If a successful party has any concerns about the ability to serve an order, they should request an order under ''RTA'', s 71(1) and (2) permitting alternate means of service. An example of such an order would be one that permits serving a document at a tenant’s workplace rather than at their new home.		'''NOTE''': If a successful party has any concerns about the ability to serve an order, they should request an order under ''RTA'', s 71(1) and (2) permitting alternate means of service. An example of such an order would be one that permits serving a document at a tenant’s workplace rather than at their new home.

	=== 1. Enforcing a Monetary Order ===		=== 1. Enforcing a Monetary Order ===

LSLAP: /* 5. Filing Complaints to the RTB */

2025-09-22T11:07:30Z

5. Filing Complaints to the RTB

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 22 September 2025
Line 336:		Line 336:
	Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2		Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2

	Complaints can also be made to the BC Ombudsperson. More information can be found at ww.ombudsman.bc.ca.		Complaints can also be made to the BC Ombudsperson. More information can be found at www.ombudsman.bc.ca.

	Note that the BC Ombudsperson does not review decisions; they can only investigate complaints where a person feels that RTB staff has treated them unfairly.		Note that the BC Ombudsperson does not review decisions; they can only investigate complaints where a person feels that RTB staff has treated them unfairly.

LSLAP: /* 5. Filing Complaints to the RTB */

2025-09-22T11:07:14Z

5. Filing Complaints to the RTB

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 22 September 2025
Line 336:		Line 336:
	Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2		Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2

	Complaints can also be made to the BC Ombudsperson.		Complaints can also be made to the BC Ombudsperson. More information can be found at ww.ombudsman.bc.ca.

	Note that the BC Ombudsperson does not review decisions; they can only investigate complaints where a person feels that RTB staff has treated them unfairly.		Note that the BC Ombudsperson does not review decisions; they can only investigate complaints where a person feels that RTB staff has treated them unfairly.

LSLAP: /* 4. Review by the Supreme Court of B.C. */

2025-09-22T11:06:35Z

4. Review by the Supreme Court of B.C.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 22 September 2025
Line 327:		Line 327:
	When a decision is overturned by the court, the case is usually returned to an Arbitrator to be reheard. Due to the complexity of operating in the B.C. Supreme Court, a lawyer should be involved for a judicial review in B.C. Supreme Court. It is important to get legal advice and act quickly. The Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) (604-685-3425) is available to assist with judicial reviews of Arbitrators’ decisions where the decision relates to an eviction notice. [https://tenants.bc.ca/get-help/legal-representation/ TRAC’s Housing Law Clinic] may also assist with judicial review of RTB Decisions. For more information on grounds on grounds for judicial review, see [https://judicialreviewbc.ca/ here].		When a decision is overturned by the court, the case is usually returned to an Arbitrator to be reheard. Due to the complexity of operating in the B.C. Supreme Court, a lawyer should be involved for a judicial review in B.C. Supreme Court. It is important to get legal advice and act quickly. The Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) (604-685-3425) is available to assist with judicial reviews of Arbitrators’ decisions where the decision relates to an eviction notice. [https://tenants.bc.ca/get-help/legal-representation/ TRAC’s Housing Law Clinic] may also assist with judicial review of RTB Decisions. For more information on grounds on grounds for judicial review, see [https://judicialreviewbc.ca/ here].

	NOTE: Losing a judicial review may result in an award of costs, meaning that the losing party must pay the legal costs of the other party.		'''NOTE''': Losing a judicial review may result in an award of costs, meaning that the losing party must pay the legal costs of the other party.

	=== 5. Filing Complaints to the RTB ===		=== 5. Filing Complaints to the RTB ===