Peters v. Lebert

Peters v. Lebert

The arbitrator's interpretation that an application is not 'made' for the purposes of s.38 unless accepted by the director and a hearing letter issued was patently unreasonable; an application is 'made' when it is submitted in the approved form and the prescribed fee is paid (supported by the Branch's online receipt and later Rule 2.6), therefore the doubling order was quashed and the landlord is entitled to return of the security deposit in the normal course.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1805
Parties
Petitioner: Barbara Ann Peters; Respondent: Alice May Lebert; Respondent: Residential Tenancy Branch; Respondent: Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judicial Review Decision of Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Partially quashed: the arbitrator's order requiring payment of double the security deposit was quashed and replaced with an order that the landlord return the security deposit in the normal course; all other aspects of the arbitrator's decision and the review decision remain undisturbed.
Legal Topics
Privative Clause, Statutory Time Limits, Security Deposit, Standard of Review, Tribunal Deference
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Residential Tenancy Law Statutory Interpretation Privative Clause Statutory Time Limits Security Deposit Standard of Review Tribunal Deference

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Ann Peters

Petitioner

Alice May Lebert

Respondent

Residential Tenancy Branch

Respondent

Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judicial Review Decision of Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an application for dispute resolution under the Residential Tenancy Act is 'made' when submitted and fee paid online or only when accepted by the director and a hearing notice issued
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's interpretation that the application was made on acceptance was patently unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator should have considered the Branch's online policies and receipt language in interpreting s.38 and s.59 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's interpretation that an application is not 'made' for the purposes of s.38 unless accepted by the director and a hearing letter issued was patently unreasonable; an application is 'made' when it is submitted in the approved form and the prescribed fee is paid (supported by the Branch's online receipt and later Rule 2.6), therefore the doubling order was quashed and the landlord is entitled to return of the security deposit in the normal course.

Court Disposition

Partially quashed: the arbitrator's order requiring payment of double the security deposit was quashed and replaced with an order that the landlord return the security deposit in the normal course; all other aspects of the arbitrator's decision and the review decision remain undisturbed.

Orders

  • Quash the requirement that Ms. Peters pay double the security deposit to Ms. Lebert
  • Order that Ms. Peters pay/return the security deposit to Ms. Lebert in the normal course