The latest salvo in a long-running battle between tenants of the Summerland R.V. Park and their landlords, this time over alleged 10 years' arrears of rent, is going back to the Residential Tenancy Board for a rehearing.
Following a judicial review, on Feb. 3 Justice Karen Douglas ordered the RTB to give a second hearing in the case between the RV park and Judith McAllister and Linda Snow.
In her decision, Douglas said the tenants and the park have had an ongoing dispute stretching back years that has seen multiple petitions to the RTB followed by requests for judicial review.
The most recent issue was over the validity of the landlord鈥檚 notice to end the McAllister and Snow's tenancy at the park, based on an alleged 10 years鈥� arrears of rent according to a lease signed in 2012.
The landlord claimed to have discovered the signed lease in 2022, and claimed that it governed the tenancy over the previous 2009 lease.
The RTB arbitrator had cancelled the landlord鈥檚 notice at the original hearing and ruled that the older lease was the one which governed the tenancy agreement, but did not make a proper ruling on whether the 2012 lease was a proper binding agreement, Douglas found in her Feb. 3 decision.
The 2009 lease had an annual rent of $2,285, while the 2012 lease was considerably higher, at $425 a month or $5,100 a year.
The campground owner said the RTB's decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, and asked for a rehearing.
The respondents said the petition is part of a 12-year dispute. They have lived at the park since 1993.
The park, on 2.8 hectares in Summerland, has 127 fully-serviced manufactured homes and recreational vehicle sites.
At the start of 2009, the respondents, who were then managers of the park, drafted and signed a new lease agreement, with an annual rent of $2,285.
In late April, 2012, the park owner鈥檚 authorized representative and former site manager presented the respondents with a new lease, effective May 1, 2012. This lease was signed May 12, 2012. The new lease also included a five-page addendum, with 24 park rules.
Under the new lease, the respondents were to pay rent of $425 a month, or $5,100 a year and were also to pay electricity costs of $250 a year, when a meter was installed at their site.
The arbitrator cancelled the park鈥檚 notice to end the respondents鈥� tenancy, finding it to be of no force and effect, and ordered the 2009 tenancy to continue. The decision said the 2012 lease was not binding on the parties.
In her statements, Douglas acknowledged that the validity and enforceability of the 2009 lease was a foundational element of multiple previous decisions involving the parties.
鈥淯ltimately, reading the Residential Tenancy Branch decision as a whole, I am unable to follow the line of reasoning that resulted in the arbitrator鈥檚 conclusory statement that the 2012 lease was not binding on the parties,鈥� Douglas said in her statement.
As a result, the petition from the landlords was allowed and the issue remitted to the Residential Tenancy Branch for a rehearing.
