A man who received an eviction notice from his public housing unit for unpaid $45 in rent has now won the right to stay in his apartment. The judge described the original reason for his eviction as “unreasonable.”
Jeremy Wall, who lived in a Kettle Friendship Society social housing unit in downtown Vancouver, received a one-month eviction notice in September.
The reason for the eviction, stated in court documents, was that Wall was “repeatedly late in paying rent,” which is normally a legitimate reason for eviction under the law.
However, according to a ruling released last week, Wall’s “repeated late payment of rent” was due to a single underpayment. In April 2023, only $375 of his $420 monthly rent was paid, and the shortfall was carried over several months.
Furthermore, Wall was not responsible for paying his rent and the fault was not his to begin with.
“Mr. Wall is a recipient of disability assistance from the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Alleviation. His rent was paid directly by the ministry,” the ruling states.
“The underpayment in April 2023 resulted from an error by the ministry.”
Wall said that when he first received a letter informing him of the shortfall in May 2023, he paid the landlord $45 directly, but he could not provide a receipt to prove it.
Over the next few months, he continued to receive letters demanding that he pay the shortfall, but he said he felt the matter was settled when he paid the landlord $45.
In the fourth letter he received, he was informed that the arrears had to be paid by September 30. However, on September 19, he received a notice of termination with one month’s notice.
In November, the September eviction notice was still in effect, but he had not moved out. On the advice of a lawyer, he paid the landlord an additional $45 and received a receipt, but it was not taken into account in subsequent decisions.
An arbitrator sided with Kettle Housing Society in January, saying that a tenant was considered “repeatedly in arrears” after three delays and that Wall met that criterion because he had not paid the difference for over three months.
However, one judge disagreed with the arbitrator.
“…the arbitrator’s finding that Mr Wall was repeatedly in arrears with rent, as that expression is used in section 47(1)(b) of the Act, is manifestly unreasonable. In other words, it is clearly unreasonable on its face and cannot be rationally supported by the material before the arbitrator,” the judgment states.
Wall was also awarded costs.
“I am not suggesting that the landlord acted unreasonably in taking steps to enforce the RTB (Residential Tenancy Branch) order, but the reality is that tenants face very tight deadlines in these matters,” the judge wrote.
