Decades-Long Tenancy Blocks Eviction as Court Finds Ulterior Motives

Ms. Janet Fraser, a 73-year-old tenant paying below-market rent, successfully challenged her eviction after living in the same apartment for over 20 years. The B.C Supreme Court found that the RTB arbitrator failed to properly assess the landlord’s good faith, particularly whether there was an ulterior motive, and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy Board – Judicial Review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Legislative compliance – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness; Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Eviction.

Fraser v. 1392383 B.C. Ltd., [2025] B.C.J. No. 1651, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 28, 2025, S.M. Sukstorf J.

Janet Fraser, a 73-old tenant who had lived in the same apartment for over 20 years, paying $780 per month, applied for judicial review of the Residential Tenancy Board (RTB) decisions that confirmed her eviction.

The dispute began after the landlord, a numbered company, purchased the building in June 2023. In October 2023, the landlord issued a Four-Month Notice to End Tenancy for Demolition and Conversion of the Rental Unit (the “First Notice”). Ms. Fraser attempted to negotiate a rent increase, which the landlord refused. Ms. Fraser successfully disputed the First Notice, which was subsequently cancelled.

In January 2024, a major water leak caused serious damage to Ms. Fraser’s unit (#7), leaving a large hole in the ceiling. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that the unit would be uninhabitable for three months during the repairs.

In Febraury 2024, the landlord issued a second Four Month Notice to End Tenancy for Demolition and Conversion of the Rental Unit and claimed that the unit was required for a live-in-caretaker (the “Second Notice”). The landlord claimed only Ms. Fraser’s unit was suitable for a caretaker due to its layout and rear access. Ms. Fraser disputed this, noting that four other vacant units had the same layout. She also submitted evidence of three recent eviction notices issued to other tenants citing “family use”, two of which named individuals not on the corporate registry, arguing this showed a pattern targeting below-market tenants.

The RTB granted the landlord an Order for Possession (the “Underlying Decision”) and upheld it on review (the “Review Decision”).

Ms. Fraser filed a petition for judicial review, arguing that the Underlying Decision and the Review Decision were patently unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The court agreed, holding that the RTB arbitrator failed to properly apply the statutory good faith test under section 49(6)(e) of the Residential Tenancy Act. While the arbitrator considered whether the landlord intended to employ a caretaker, they failed to address the second element, whether there was an ulterior motive.

The court noted multiple deficiencies in the RTB decisions, including:

• Inconsistent reasons for eviction (repair vs. caretaker).
• Prior eviction notices for other tenants, some invalid, suggesting a broader patter targeting below-market tenants.
• Contradictions in the landlord’s evidence regarding repair timelines and unit availability.
• Failure to consider reasonable alternatives, such as temporarily relocating Ms. Fraser to another vacant unit while the repairs were being done.
• Lack of transparency and justification, particularly given the serious consequences of eviction of a vulnerable, elderly tenant. 

The court set aside both the Underlying Decision and the Review Decision and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

This case was digested by Morgan Barber.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].