B.C. man whose subsidized rent jumped $1K wins appeal
A B.C. man whose subsidized rent jumped from $551 a month to $1,530 has taken his case to the B.C. Court of Appeal and won a review.
The case involves Phillip James Ryan who was living in a subsidized two-bedroom apartment at the downtown Vancouver Mole Hill Community Housing Society.
Through an operating agreement with B.C. Housing, Ryan was paying $551 rent for himself and his daughter.
However, following a custody agreement with his former spouse, the Mole Hill Community Housing Society decided the child didn't live in the unit at least 40 per cent of the time and therefore he would no longer be able to claim a subsidy.
The Mole Hill Community Housing Society then put up his rent to $1,530.
Ryan paid the increased amount for a couple of months but took the Housing Society to the Residential Tenancy Branch asking for his money back but lost his case.
During the dispute, the Housing Society issued a Ryan notice to end tenancy for unpaid rent.
He paid the extra cash and again appealed to the Residential Tenancy Branch but lost.
Ryan also took the case to the B.C. Supreme Court asking for a judicial review of the Residential Tenancy Branch decisions and an order to get back the extra rent he'd paid.
He lost that case, too.
Undeterred, Ryan then took the case to the B.C. Court of Appeal and the panel of three judges poked holes in the Residential Tenancy Branch's rulings.
According to a June 8 B.C. Court of Appeal decision, the court found that Mole Hill Community Housing Society had not acted properly when assessing his rent.
"They concluded that the rent now payable was $1,530 when there was no evidence supporting that conclusion," Justice Elizabeth Bennett said in the decision. "A conclusion based on no evidence is a patently unreasonable decision."
The court also found that Ryan was made to sign the subsidy form while it was blank.
"Therefore, despite the wording on the subsidy application allowing it to be attached or otherwise a part of a tenancy agreement, that application could not be part of this Tenancy Agreement because there was no meeting of the minds on the evidence," the justice said.
The court found that the documents submitted to the Residential Tenancy Branch did not say that Ryan had ever agreed to pay $1,530 per month if he was no longer eligible for the rent subsidy.
The decision also says a separate Residential Tenancy Branch ruling also found that Ryan was eligible for the subsidy.
The court then said the Residential Tenancy Branch had "misunderstood" the issue before them.
"The arbitrator was not being asked to set the rent for Mr. Ryan, that is indeed the decision of Mole Hill, in conjunction with B.C. Housing. He was being asked to interpret the Tenancy Agreement to determine what the rent is under the agreement, not in the future," the justice said.
Ultimately, the court found the Residential Tenancy Branch had made numerous errors and that Ryan's case needed to go back to them for reconsideration.
To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.
We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above.
