VadeLab
DismissedResidential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia)·

Landlord Wins Order of Possession and Unpaid Rent from Tenant

Case No. AnonDec-301388

📌 In brief

The Tenant did not pay overdue rent or dispute a notice within five days, resulting in the dismissal of their application. The Landlord was granted an order to take possession of the property and a monetary order for unpaid rent.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant who fails to pay rent within five days after receiving a 10 Day Notice or dispute it in court loses their right to challenge the notice under Section 46 of the Act.

Topics

unpaid renttenancy disputes

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 46Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 52Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 55

📖 Technical summary

The Tenant's application to cancel a 10 Day Notice for unpaid rent was dismissed, and the Landlord is entitled to an Order of Possession and Monetary Order.

📚 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:

Dismissed12 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

  • The tenant failed to pay rent or dispute a 10 Day Notice within five days.
  • The landlord failed to prove that the claimed amounts were owing when the notice was issued.
  • No formal tenancy agreement had been formally established and agreed upon by both parties.
  • The landlord sought a Monetary Order for unpaid rent and related fees.
  • The landlord proved extenuating circumstances that justified their occupancy of a rental unit after issuing a notice.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant failed to pay rent within five days after receiving a 10 Day Notice or dispute it in court.
  • The issues between the parties had been resolved through a mutual agreement and there was no breach.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tenant's application to cancel a 10 Day Notice for unpaid rent was dismissed, granting the Landlord an Order of Possession and Monetary Order.

Who was involved?

A Tenant who failed to pay rent and a Landlord seeking possession of the property.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that since the Tenant did not dispute or pay within five days after receiving the 10 Day Notice, they lost their right to challenge it under Section 46 of the Act.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The Tenant's failure to pay rent within five days after receiving a 10 Day Notice or dispute it in court led to their inability to challenge the notice.

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

Against the Tenant, as they did not comply with Section 46 of the Act.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If you receive a 10 Day Notice and do not pay rent within five days or dispute it, you risk losing your right to challenge the notice.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The 10 Day Notice and proof of service were key documents in this case.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the Residential Tenancy Branch can typically be appealed to the BC Supreme Court.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is advisable to consult with a qualified lawyer who specializes in residential tenancy law.

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.