VadeLab
AllowedResidential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia)·

BC RTB Grants Order of Possession for Unpaid Rent in Surrey

Case No. AnonDec-301446

📌 In brief

The Landlord won an eviction case against the Tenant because the Tenant did not pay rent owed and failed to respond to a 10 Day Notice. The decision was made based on the Residential Tenancy Act, which allows landlords to obtain possession orders if tenants do not comply with notices.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is conclusively presumed to have accepted the end of the tenancy if they do not pay arrears or dispute the 10 Day Notice within five days, as per section 46(5) of the Residential Tenancy Act.

Topics

tenant evictionunpaid rent

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 46Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 53(2)Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 67Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 72

📚 Full judgment

The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.

⚖️ View on the official court website ↗

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed9 cases
Allowed in Part3 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • A tenant did not pay the outstanding rent or dispute a 10 Day Notice within five days.
  • A landlord did not return a security deposit within fifteen days.
  • A landlord did not prove that the money claimed in a 10 Day Notice was actually owed.
  • A landlord did not return or claim against security and pet damage deposits.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A landlord did not prove that the tenant failed to pay rent within five days of receiving a 10 Day Notice.
  • A tenant tried to withhold rent or dispute a valid rent increase notice based on problems with older notices.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision granted the landlord an order of possession and ordered the tenant to pay $430 in unpaid rent.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over unpaid rent and the landlord's request for possession of the property.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the landlord because the tenant did not pay the rent or dispute the 10 Day Notice within the required timeframe.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 46, 55, 67, and 72 of the Residential Tenancy Act were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The most important argument was the tenant's failure to respond to the 10 Day Notice within the required timeframe.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord, who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they respond to notices within the required timeframe to avoid losing their tenancy.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the rental agreement, the 10 Day Notice, and proof of service.

Official source: Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) — this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) (© Province of British Columbia). VadeLab reproduces no part of the decision text; the summary above is VadeLab's own material. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.