Tribunal decision-maker can be direct in their questioning of parties regarding their evidence without demonstrating bias 

Tribunal decision-maker can be direct in their questioning of parties regarding their evidence without demonstrating bias.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Residential Tenancy board – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice; Landlord and tenant – Residential tenancy agreements – Termination.

Bennett v. Seto, [2026] B.C.J. No. 771, British Columbia Court of Appeal, April 23, 2026, P.M. Willcock, L.A. Fenlon and J. Winteringham JJ.A.

In February 2019, the appellant tenants entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the respondent landlord.

In October 2022, the landlord attempted to increase the monthly rent. The tenants resisted the rent increase. This led to the landlord issuing a notice to end tenancy for the landlord’s use of property under the Residential Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 78 (“RTA”), on the basis the landlord’s mother would be using the unit.

Five months after the tenants moved out of the unit, the landlord posted an advertisement to rent out the unit. The tenants sought compensation under the RTA on the basis the unit was not used for the specified purpose in the notice to end tenancy. The tenants sought compensation of $12,000 (12 times the monthly rent payments of $1000) and return of the damage deposit.

The Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”) awarded compensation of $12,000 and return of the deposit less cleaning expenses. An internal review application was dismissed. On judicial review, the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

On judicial review and on appeal, the landlord argued the RTB arbitrator was biased and the hearing was procedurally unfair. The basis for this position was the arbitrator’s “aggressive cross-examination” of the landlord during the hearing, including by accusing the landlord of lying and threatening an administrative penalty.

The Court of Appeal rejected the allegation of bias. It found that when considered in the context of the hearing, the RTB arbitrator was putting the case to the landlord that they had to meet. The arbitrator’s questions were directly responsive to the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. While the threat of an administrative penalty was unnecessary and inappropriate, it did not demonstrate bias. The Court of Appeal found the arbitrator was direct, but was direct about the very issue they needed to determine. Reminding the landlord they were under oath and informing them about compliance was unnecessary; however, this conduct was not such that a reasonably informed bystander could reasonably perceive bias on the part of the arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 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].