VadeLab
Allowed in PartResidential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia)·

Landlord Wins Possession Order, Rent Claim Rejected

Case No. AnonDec-301501

📌 In brief

A landlord successfully obtained an order of possession from the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) based on a 10 Day Notice due to unpaid rent. The tenant failed to pay or dispute the notice within five days, leading to the end of tenancy. However, the monetary claim for unpaid rent was dismissed because service did not meet legal requirements.

Topics

residential tenancyunpaid rent

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 46Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 53(2)Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 89(2)

📖 Technical summary

The Landlord's application for possession was granted, but the monetary claim for unpaid rent was dismissed.

📚 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:

Allowed in Part7 cases
Allowed5 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 did not pay the overdue rent within five days of getting a 10 Day Notice.
  • The tenant did not challenge a 10 Day Notice within five days.
  • The tenant's attempt to cancel a 10 Day Notice failed because they did not pay or challenge it on time.
  • The tenant stopped paying rent due to alleged minor problems with earlier notices.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord did not return the security deposit within fifteen days.
  • The landlord did not return or claim against the security and pet damage deposits.
  • The landlord's request for possession and money was denied, even when the tenant did not pay rent after a 10 Day Notice.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

Who was involved?

A landlord and a tenant were involved in the dispute over unpaid rent and eviction.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court granted possession based on the Tenant's failure to pay or dispute the 10 Day Notice within five days. The monetary claim was dismissed due to improper service of documents.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 46, 53(2), and 89(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act (BC).

What was the argument that mattered most?

The Tenant's failure to pay arrears within five days or dispute the notice led to the conclusive presumption of acceptance of tenancy termination.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the Landlord, granting possession but dismissing the monetary claim.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

A landlord can obtain an order of possession if a tenant fails to pay arrears or dispute a 10 Day Notice within five days. However, service requirements must be strictly followed for monetary claims.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The 10 Day Notice and proof of service were crucial in establishing the Tenant's failure to comply with the notice.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the RTB can typically be appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

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

It is advisable to consult a qualified lawyer for legal advice specific to your situation.

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.