Court Agrees with Residential Tenancy Branch’s Order for Repossession and Monetary Award for Unpaid Rent

The petitioner sought a judicial review of a Residential Tenancy Branch’s (the “RTB”) decision in favour of a landlord to repossess the rented property and a monetary award for unpaid rent. The Court held that the RTB’s decision was not patently unreasonable. The evidence was sufficient to support the decision for repossession and the monetary award. The Court ultimately dismissed the judicial review but ordered the monetary award to be reduced by the later payments made by the petitioner.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness; Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination.

Janik v. Zagrodzki, [2026] B.C.J. No. 325, British Columbia Supreme Court, February 25, 2026, C.L. Forth J.

The petitioner and their landlord entered into a month-to-month residential tenancy agreement. Due to unpaid rent, the landlord signed a Notice to End Tenancy for Unpaid Rent and later served a Landlord’s Notice of Direct Request Proceeding (the “Notice”). A Residential Tenancy Branch (the “RTB”) hearing proceeded on the basis that a notice to end tenancy had been given by the landlord, the tenant had not disputed the notice by making the application for dispute resolution, and the time for making that application had expired.

The RTB adjudicator found that the rent was duly owed, was unpaid, and as a result of the failure to pay the rent in full and no dispute being filed, the tenancy was ended. The RTB made an order of possession and monetary award to the landlord.

The petitioner applied for a review of the RTB’s decision. In the reconsideration decision, the arbitrator noted that there were no particulars provided and no grounds identified by the petitioner. As such, the RTB’s decision was confirmed and the review application dismissed.

The petitioner sought a judicial review alleging procedural unfairness, improper service of the Notice, and fraud by the landlord. The Court found that the RTB’s decision was not patently unreasonable in light of the materials before the adjudicator. The evidence was sufficient to support the issuance of the order for possession and the monetary order. The Court noted that the petitioner did not expressly state on what basis the RTB’s decision was patently unreasonable. Regarding the petitioner’s allegation for procedural unfairness, the Court held that the petitioner failed to provide any particulars in support of his assertion that he was not served with the Notice. As such, the Court also dismissed the procedural unfairness claim.

The Court further held that there was no fraudulent statement made by the landlord and was unable to conclude that the RTB’s decision was induced by fraud. The Court ultimately dismissed the judicial review but ordered that the amount owing under the monetary order be reduced by later payments made by the petitioner. This case was digested by Eric Mo of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].