BC landlord ordered to pay tenants $65,000 loses appeal

A BC landlord who evicted his tenants when he sold a rental property to a couple who never moved in or finalized the sale has been left on the hook to pay $65,000 to the tenants who were found to have been wrongly evicted.

According to July 18 BC Supreme Court decision, this is the second time landlord Mohan Sull has appealed the Residential Tenancy Branch order that left him to pay his former tenants $65,000.

The decision said that in 2014, Sull began renting his North Vancouver property for $5,650 a month to Thomas and Rozette Trevitt.

In 2022, he decided to sell the property and came to an “option to purchase agreement” with a couple who wanted to buy it.

The couple, Aldo Trinetti and Ellys Santis Cresol, would make a down payment $100,000 and then pay $5,800 per month in interest payments. They had five years to buy the property, and if they backed out, they’d get their $100,000 back.

Sull gave the tenants two months’ notice as the new buyers intended to move in, and the tenants moved out.

However, the buyers didn’t move in and began extensive renovations, which were delayed after the city issued a stop order because they didn’t get the proper permits.

The former tenants then applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch, arguing they should not have been evicted because the new buyers hadn’t moved in and didn’t own the property yet.

In BC, landlords can’t evict tenants and then get new ones without a justifiable reason. Landlords who don’t follow the rules can be found liable and ordered to pay the value of 12 months’ rent to the tenants.

The Residential Tenancy Branch ruled the tenants shouldn’t have been made to leave and ordered Sull to pay 12 months’ worth of rent totalling $65,000.

He appealed to the Supreme Court, which sent the file back to the Residential Tenancy Branch.

However, the Residential Tenancy Branch stuck with its decision, saying he had to pay.

“The (Residential Tenancy Branch) emphasized that the wrongful act was not that the buyers had not occupied the property, but rather that the tenants ought not to have had their tenancy terminated in the first place,” the decision read.

In his second appeal, Sull argued the new owners should have to pay because they had possession of the property and didn’t move in.

He argued it was their responsibility to deal with the tenants.

However, BC Supreme Court Justice Anita Chan disagreed.

“In my view, the (Tenancy Branch) finding that the landlord was not entitled to end the tenancy as all the conditions on which the sale depends have not been satisfied is not patently unreasonable,” the Justice said. “In these circumstances, the (Tenancy Branch’s) finding that the Tenants should be compensated as they were provided with an improper notice to end tenancy is not patently unreasonable.”

The landlord also argued the tenancy was ended under a mutual agreement, but again, the Justice dismissed the argument.

The Justice ruled the new buyers hadn’t bought the property yet, so it was still Sull’s responsibility and they should not have been evicted in the first place.

The Justice dismissed his appeal leaving him to pay $65,000.