Yu v. Carreiro

Yu v. Carreiro

The RTB decision was patently unreasonable because the arbitrator irrationally discounted unchallenged testimony and available evidence that the landlord's son moved into the unit in May 2025 (on or before the notice effective date), and because s.51(2)(b) requires 12 months of use which had not occurred by the hearing; accordingly the monetary award could not lawfully be made and the Merits Decision was set aside without remitting the matter.

Citation
2025 BCSC 2241
Parties
Petitioner (landlord): Feng Ying Yu; Respondent (tenant): Amber Carreiro
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Petition to Set Aside RTB Order
Outcome
Arbitrator's Merits Decision set aside; tenant's dispute dismissed; no leave to reapply
Legal Topics
Repossession for Landlord's Use, Compensation Under S.51 RTA, Standard of Review, Judicial Review Remedies
Source Language
English
Residential Tenancy Administrative Law Landlord and Tenant Repossession for Landlord's Use Compensation Under S.51 RTA Standard of Review Judicial Review Remedies

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Feng Ying Yu

Petitioner (landlord)

Amber Carreiro

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Petition to Set Aside RTB Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RTB arbitrator's Merits Decision was patently unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the landlord satisfied s.51(2)(a) and (b) of the Residential Tenancy Act
  3. 3 Whether remitting the matter to the RTB was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The RTB decision was patently unreasonable because the arbitrator irrationally discounted unchallenged testimony and available evidence that the landlord's son moved into the unit in May 2025 (on or before the notice effective date), and because s.51(2)(b) requires 12 months of use which had not occurred by the hearing; accordingly the monetary award could not lawfully be made and the Merits Decision was set aside without remitting the matter.

Court Disposition

Arbitrator's Merits Decision set aside; tenant's dispute dismissed; no leave to reapply

Orders

  • Decision of Arbitrator Verdon dated June 10, 2025 is set aside, without leave to reapply
  • Tenant's dispute dismissed