December 8,2025
RED FM News Desk
A property management company has been ordered to pay more than $32,000 to tenants who were wrongfully evicted, after failing to persuade a B.C. Supreme Court judge that the homeowners—not the company—should be responsible.
In a decision posted Monday, the court dismissed the company’s request for a judicial review of a Residential Tenancy Branch ruling.
The tenants had been evicted in 2024 under a section of the Residential Tenancy Act that lets landlords end a tenancy if they or a close relative plan to move into the unit. Although the owner did appear to move in initially, the unit was listed for rent online about four months later.
The tenancy branch found that the owner did not meet the legal requirement to live in the unit for at least 12 months post-eviction, and awarded the tenants compensation equal to a year’s rent—$32,928.
The arbitrator determined that Homax Real Estate Services (1256206 BC Ltd.) acted as the owner’s agent and met the Act’s definition of a “landlord,” making the company liable for compensating the displaced tenants. The company had issued the two-month notice and did not take steps to add or substitute the actual owner as a respondent.
While Homax did not dispute that compensation was owed, it argued it should not be required to pay because it did not own the unit. The company claimed the decision was unreasonable since it was not a party to the tenancy agreement and should not be liable for the owner’s obligation.
The court rejected that argument, noting that landlord-tenant issues are governed by statute, not contract law. Under the Residential Tenancy Act, the “landlord” includes the owner, the owner’s agent, or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf in managing the tenancy.
Evidence showed the company collected rent, communicated with tenants, conducted the pre-move-out inspection, and served the eviction notice—all actions consistent with being the owner’s agent.
The court also noted that the tenants properly sent their dispute notice to the address listed on both the tenancy agreement and the eviction notice—the company’s business address. Homax did not notify the owner or attempt to have the owner added to the dispute proceedings.
The judge found the company responsible for ensuring the owner was informed and named in the dispute, and said that allowing the property manager to avoid liability due to a “defect” in notice would undermine the purpose of the Act.
The petition was dismissed, and the former tenants were awarded costs.
Loading ...
