A landlord said she won’t be able to pay her grandmother’s medical expenses all because she forgot to date her tenant’s eviction notice.
The Residential Tenancy Branch ruled last week tenants living in a Gilmore Crescent basement suite don’t have to vacate the premises due to the incomplete information on the eviction notice.
However, the landlord, Karmen Suen – who has sold the property – said she “desperately” needs the proceeds from the sale to support her grandmother’s medical expenses, including companion care and physiotherapy.
Terms to close the sale include the property being vacated by the tenants.
The tenants were given a two-month eviction notice after the landlord, delivered it to the tenants’ son and posted on their door.
However, the arbitrator noted there was no date on the eviction notice and ruled the two-month notice was invalid.
Eviction can take place after a proper eviction notice is issued to the tenant, the arbitrator ruled.
Suen has applied to have the decision reviewed.
She claims she wasn’t provided evidence from the tenant that was “crucial” to the arbitrator’s decision.
In asking for a review of the decision, Suen further claims the eviction notice might have been “tampered with” thereby not showing a date.
But the arbitrator had already ruled that the landlord’s own photo of the eviction notice posted on the tenant’s door didn’t show a date.
“… the Landlord stated that their own evidence of a photograph of the Notice posted to the Tenants’ door does not show a date,” the arbitrator, F. Lee, said in the decision.
She also claims the tenant didn't send the dispute documents "through the proper channels," rather, sent them via WhatsApp.
The new owners have, however, moved into the upstairs unit, but their elderly father can’t climb stairs and needs to occupy the basement, Suen told the Richmond News.
The arbitrator encouraged the two parties to come to a mutual agreement on vacating the property, but noted in the decision “a settlement agreement could not be reached.”
If the review is rejected, Suen’s only option is to take the matter to the BC Supreme Court.
