Ignorance of the law is not a basis for arguing a lack of procedural fairness

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy office; Judicial review – Appeals – Legislative compliance; Landlord and tenant – Leases – Eviction.

Kaur v. Residential Tenancy Branch, Director, [2025] B.C.J. No. 1288, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 10, 2025, M. Taylor J.

The petitioner landlord applied to set aside a decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”) granting the respondent tenant a monetary award for compensation under ss. 51(2) and 72 of the Residential Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 78 (the “RTA”).

During the tenancy, the landlord issued a notice to end the tenancy for the landlord’s use, on the basis they intended to occupy the property with their family members. The tenant vacated the property. The landlord then renovated the property. Following the renovations, the landlord contacted the (now former) tenant to offer to rent them the property, now renovated and at an increased rent. The landlord stated: “Am putting on rent add in this week.”

The tenant applied for 12 months’ rent as compensation under the RTA on the basis the landlord had failed to prove they moved into the property within a reasonable time after the effective date of the notice to end tenancy. The RTA adjudicator upheld the monetary award of $30,100.00.

On judicial review, the landlord argued the hearing before the RTA adjudicator was procedurally unfair because they did not understand the case again them. The Court rejected this argument on two bases.

First, this issue was not raised before the adjudicator, contrary to the well-accepted principle that allegations of procedural fairness cannot be raised for the first time on judicial review if they could reasonably have been the subject of timely objection in the first-instance forum.

Second, the landlord’s argument they would have led additional evidence had they understood the case against them was predicated on their own ignorance about the applicable law, rather than any procedural steps taken or not taken by the RTA adjudicator. The RTA adjudicator had no obligation to explain to provide legal advice regarding the statutory scheme to the landlord.

The Court dismissed the petition for judicial review. This case was digested by Joel A. Morris of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].