Williams v. Holywell Properties

Williams v. Holywell Properties

The DRO's decision was set aside because procedural fairness was breached: the petitioner had a legitimate expectation based on the DRO's comments that outstanding criminal charges would only affect credibility and, following counsel's advice, could not comment; the DRO nonetheless relied on the absence of comment and the unrecorded hearing left factual conflicts unresolved, rendering remittal for a new hearing before a different DRO necessary.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1742
Parties
Petitioner: Jerome Anthony Williams; Landlord / Respondent: Holywell Properties; Dispute Resolution Officer / Respondent: Bryan Wilkinson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Residential Tenancy Branch Decision / Application for Judicial Review; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed; decision and order of the Dispute Resolution Officer set aside; matter remitted for a new hearing before a different DRO; costs awarded to petitioner on Scale B against Holywell Properties.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Remission for Rehearing, Privative Clause and Standard of Review, Termination of Tenancy Under S.47(1)(e) RTA, Bias/allegation of Unfairness
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Residential Tenancy Law Criminal Law (evidence) Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Remission for Rehearing Privative Clause and Standard of Review Termination of Tenancy Under S.47(1)(e) RTA +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jerome Anthony Williams

Petitioner

Holywell Properties

Landlord / Respondent

Bryan Wilkinson

Dispute Resolution Officer / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Residential Tenancy Branch Decision / Application for Judicial Review; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DRO misapplied s.47(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancy Act
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was breached by reliance on outstanding criminal charges the petitioner would not comment on
  3. 3 Whether the DRO's factual findings were patently unreasonable under the Administrative Tribunals Act privative clause

Ratio Decidendi

The DRO's decision was set aside because procedural fairness was breached: the petitioner had a legitimate expectation based on the DRO's comments that outstanding criminal charges would only affect credibility and, following counsel's advice, could not comment; the DRO nonetheless relied on the absence of comment and the unrecorded hearing left factual conflicts unresolved, rendering remittal for a new hearing before a different DRO necessary.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; decision and order of the Dispute Resolution Officer set aside; matter remitted for a new hearing before a different DRO; costs awarded to petitioner on Scale B against Holywell Properties.

Orders

  • Decision and order of the Dispute Resolution Officer dated September 23, 2009 set aside
  • Application remitted to the Residential Tenancy Branch for a new hearing before a different Dispute Resolution Officer