Landlord Obtains Order of Possession for Unpaid Rent in Surrey
📌 In brief
A landlord successfully obtained an order from the a person to take possession of a rental unit because the tenant did not pay overdue rent or challenge the notice within the required timeframe. However, the landlord's request for additional financial compensation was denied.
📖 Technical summary
The Landlord's application for possession was granted, but monetary claims were 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) BC RTB Grants Landlord $2,295 Monetary Order for Unpaid Rent
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant Wins Double Security Deposit in BC Tenancy Case
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Landlord Granted $1,197.91 Unpaid Rent Order in Surrey
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant Wins Challenge Against Incomplete 10 Day Notice for Unpaid Rent
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Landlord Granted $751.52 Unpaid Rent Order in Surrey
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) RTB BC Grants Landlord $11,521.77 for Unpaid Rent and Utilities
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant Wins Double Security Deposit Refund in BC RTB Decision
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant wins $4,692.45 in double deposit refund from BC RTB
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant wins $3,465.91 for double security deposit and filing fee in BC RTB
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant wins $1,710.18 for double security deposit and filing fee in BC RTB
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Landlord Wins Order of Possession and Unpaid Rent Order for $3,400
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant wins $1,603.50 in double security deposit refund in BC RTB
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 10 Day Notice was properly served on the Tenant's door on May 10, 2026.
- The Tenant did not pay the rental arrears or dispute the notice within five days after receiving it.
- The Landlord is entitled to recover the $100.00 filing fee from the security deposit.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The service by posting to the door was insufficient for the monetary claims, leading to their dismissal.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision granted an Order of Possession to the Landlord based on a 10 Day Notice for unpaid rent totaling $3,900.00.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the Landlord's request for an Order of Possession due to unpaid rent of $3,900.00.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the Landlord, granting an Order of Possession because the Tenant did not respond to the 10 Day Notice within the required timeframe.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 46, 55, 67, 38, 72, 89, and 90 of the Residential Tenancy Act were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Tenant did not respond to the 10 Day Notice within the required timeframe, leading to the presumption that they accepted the end of the tenancy.
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?
For someone in a similar situation, if they do not respond to a 10 Day Notice within the required timeframe, they may lose possession of their rental unit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the 10 Day Notice and the testimony of the Landlord regarding the service of the notice and the accumulation of rent arrears.