Case Li v. Virk – 2023

Harry Saini was the successful counsel in the residential tenancy litigation case Li v. Virk at the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The Story

• In December 2018, Ms. Li agreed to pay the Landlord of a Richmond property $2500 for monthly rent
• There was a problem with one of the rooms, so the Landlord and Ms. Li revised the tenancy agreement to reduce the rent to $2000
• In spring 2022, the respondent (Mr. Virk) bought the property from the previous landlord and assumed the tenancy agreement; however, he was only provided the original (unrevised) tenancy agreement.
• On March 31st, 2022, Mr. Virk alerted Ms. Li that he was going to be the new owner and Landlord of the property she was renting. He advised her that the monthly rent would remain $2,500, due on the first day of each month.
• Ms. Li did not pay any of the rent on April 1st, 2022, believing Mr. Virk was trying to charge her $500 more than what was due
• On April 6th, Mr. Virk's property management company wrote to Ms. Li, telling her she needed to pay the full rent
• By April 10th, Ms. Li still had not paid any rent, so Mr. Virk issued a 10-Day Notice to End Tenancy. By not paying the rent when it was due, Ms. Li violated Section 26 of the Residential Tenancy Act. Ms. Li's failure to pay rent allowed Mr. Virk to give her the 10-Day-Notice and end the tenancy.
• Ms. Li challenged the 10-Day-Notice by requesting to appear before an arbitrator of the Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”). She believed the tenancy should not end and she should not have to leave the property.
• Ms. Li told an RTB arbitrator that she tried to pay Mr. Virk $2,000 of the April rent in cash, but that he refused the money. She did not provide any evidence to prove she attempted to pay him.
• The RTB arbitrator made a decision on August 29th, 2022, ordering Ms. Li to leave the property
• Following this, Ms. Li went before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, challenging the RTB's decision. She argued the RTB's decision was patently (clearly) unreasonable and the proceedings were procedurally unfair

The Result

After hearing Ms. Li's arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the RTB's decision was not patently unreasonable and the previous proceedings were procedurally fair. The court, in agreement with the RTB arbitrator, rejected Ms. Li's testimony that she attempted to pay the April rent in cash, as she provided no such evidence. As a result, Mr. Virk’s 10-Day Notice to End Tenancy was upheld for unpaid rent. Furthermore, the court determined that Ms. Li's allegations of bad faith and bias were unsupported and solely stemmed from disagreement with the arbitrator's findings. The petition was dismissed and Mr. Virk who was represented by Harry was permitted to end the tenancy. If you are dealing with a residential tenancy issue and need our help, we are happy to assist you. Click here, call us at 604-974-9529, or email us at [email protected].