Singh v. Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch

2026 BCSC 627 Singh v. Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Singh v. Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch, 2026 BCSC 627 Date: 20260323 Docket: S261355 Registry: New Westminster Between: Chiranjiv Singh Petitioner And: Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch and BC Housing Management Commission Respondents Before: The Honourable Justice Thomas Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers The Petitioner, appearing in person: C. Singh Counsel for BC Housing Management Commission: J.B. Maryniuk A.S. Cochrane Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. March 13, 2026 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. March 23, 2026 [1] THE COURT: This is a petition seeking judicial review of a decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch ("RTB") which granted a landlord vacant possession of an apartment rented by the petitioner. The apartment is subject to the BC Housing program, which provides below‑market rental housing. The primary issue is that the petitioner unilaterally withheld a rent increase imposed by the landlord. He received a notice of eviction and was advised if he did not pay the arrears, he would be evicted. He refused to pay the arrears and challenged the notice to the RTB. [2] The RTB determined that the notice of eviction was valid and ordered that the landlord receive vacant possession of the premises. The arbitrator dealt with a number of other issues raised by the petitioner, which I will comment on in more detail in these reasons. The petitioner appealed the decision to the RTB review panel, which upheld the initial decision. The petitioner obtained a stay of possession and seeks judicial review of the decisions. [3] The issues raised in this petition for judicial review are essentially the same as those raised at the hearing before the adjudicator. The petitioner says that they were not properly addressed by the RTB at the initial hearing, with the exception of one thing, which is the petitioner raises an issue of procedural unfairness with respect to a limitation imposed on the amount of material that the petitioner could refer during the hearing. Procedural Unfairness [4] The hearing commenced as a standard one-hour hearing. It was adjourned for a further hour as more time was required. The parties were allowed to provide written submissions, which were limited to eight pages before the second hearing. The petitioner provided 15 pages, which the arbitrator allowed with the consent of the landlord. The hearing then continued for another hour at the subsequent hearing. [5] The petitioner was able to raise all the issues he wished to raise. He notes that the arbitrator divided one of his issues into two separate issues in the reasons, which suggests that the arbitrator may have been confused. I disagree. The arbitrator addressed all the issues. The fact that they were organized differently is irrelevant. The substance of the issues raised were addressed by the arbitrator in his reasons. [6] The arbitrator has a wide discretion to control their own process. The RTB process is meant to be quick and in many senses, abbreviated to provide a prompt resolution to the parties. In my view, the petitioner was provided more than ample time to present his positions. The arbitrator accommodated the petitioner and his disabilities by providing an opportunity to provide written submissions, allowed longer written submissions than were initially ordered, and then provided a further one‑hour hearing. I am satisfied that the fundamental principles of procedural fairness were met by this hearing. Issues Raised by the Petitioner re: Initial Hearing Should the landlord's ten‑day notice be cancelled? If not, is the landlord entitled to an order of possession? [7] The petitioner agreed that: a) the rent increase fell within the 3 percent allowed by the Residential Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 78 [RTA]; b) he unilaterally withheld the increase and c) he was provided an opportunity to pay the increase to avoid eviction after receiving the notice of eviction. [8] He asserts the rent increase and notice was defective for a number of reasons, which were summarized in the RTB reasons as follows: The Tenant argued that he was entitled to withhold a portion of the rent due to a disagreement with a 3% rent increase applied by the Landlord. The parties agreed the Landlord applied the 3% increase starting February 2025, raising the monthly rent by $66.00. The Tenant paid the increased rent from February through September 2025, totaling eight months, after which he calculated that he had overpaid $528.00. For October 2025, the Tenant paid $1,765.00, representing the original rent of $2,293.00 minus the overpayment of $528.00. The Tenant withheld $66.00 each month subsequently thereby increasing the outstanding rent to $726.00. The Tenant asserted that the increase was invalid for two reasons. First, Clause 32 of the tenancy agreement requires mutual consent for amendments, and he did not agree to the increase. Second, the tenancy was part of a program promising rents, at least 25% below market; the Tenant argued that market rents had declined since 2024, making the increase unjustified. The Tenant testified that he communicated his intent to deduct the disputed amount and believed the Landlord's response was affirmative while reviewing his concerns. He stated that he believed he was permitted to withhold the disputed amount as a bona fide issue of contention. The Landlord disagreed with the Tenant's position, stating that the rent increase was lawful, served in compliance with the Act, and that the Tenant had no authority to unilaterally deduct amounts from rent. The Tenant has not previously brought an application to dispute the rent increase. These claims were raised only after the Landlord issued a 10 Day Notice for nonpayment of rent on November 16, 2025 The Landlord submitted a copy of the tenancy agreement and claimed that they were permitted to increase the rent in compliance with the Act. Clause 32 of the tenancy agreement requires that any change to the terms must be agreed in writing and initialed by both parties, except for rent increases in accordance with the Act or changes authorized by an order of the Director. The Landlord also submitted that the program's commitment to "below market" rents applied at the start of the tenancy and does not limit lawful annual increases under the Act. The Landlord complied with all statutory requirements, including proper notice, correct form (RTB-7), and adherence to the allowable rent increase limit of 3% for 2025. [9] These are the same issues raised before me at this judicial review of the arbitrator's decision. [10] The arbitrator found that the landlord did not consent to allowing the petitioner to unilaterally withhold rent. There was ample evidence supporting this finding. The petitioner was told on several occasions that if he withheld rent, he would be evicted and provided an opportunity to pay the rent. He chose not to do so. The arbitrator reviewed the RTA and determined that the petitioner was not entitled to withhold rent in this situation as he was not permitted by statute or by an order of the RTB to do so. This is clearly an interpretation of the act that was open to the arbitrator to find. [11] The petitioner noted that clause 32 of the lease contained a clear, typographical error, the effect of which would be to preclude the ability of the landlord to increase rent. The arbitrator noted that clause 32 applied except for rent increases, which could be instituted in accord with the RTA. The RTA allows the rent increase. Therefore, even if one were to interpret the lease in the draconian manner proposed by the petitioner, the rent increase was still allowed pursuant to the RTA. This finding by the arbitrator was clearly an interpretation of the Act that was open for him to find. [12] The arbitrator acknowledged that the petitioner provided documents showing that the BC Housing program applied to his unit and that his unit was subject to market rent based on a 25‑percent reduction from competitive rent. However, in resolving this dispute, the arbitrator focused on the tenancy agreement, which stipulated the amount of rent, and the RTA, which allowed annual increases up to 3 percent. Given the arbitrator's interpretation of his scope of authority granted by the legislation, which he interpreted as being limited to the RTA and the tenancy agreement, it was open to him to limit his analysis to the terms of the lease and the RTA in assessing the validity of the rent increase. [13] The petitioner relied on the case of Gichuru v. British Columbia (Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2010 BCCA 191, for the proposition that the RTB had to consider the public mandate and obligations of public housing providers in interpreting either rent increases or the amount of rent. I have reviewed this case. It in no way stands for that proposition. I am not aware of any authority that would support the petitioner's proposition for this. I suspect that this is a hallucinated proposition generated by artificial intelligence. In my view, given the statutory basis set out by the legislature, it was open to the arbitrator to limit his consideration to the lease and the RTA. Is the petitioner entitled to a retroactive reduction in parking fees? [14] The arbitrator summarized the issues with respect to retroactive parking fees as follows: The tenancy agreement submitted by the landlord shows the monthly rent, additional charges, and the commencement date of the tenancy. It is relied upon by the landlord to establish the tenant's obligations regarding rent and parking: 3. Rent The rent for the rental unit is $2,193 per month Other monthly charges: Parking $100 Storage TOTAL: $2,293 The Tenant, who had a car and used the parking stall, claimed that the $100.00 monthly parking charge was improper. He argued that parking should have been included in the rent under the program terms and the strata documents. The Tenant also relied on a letter from the Landlord dated October 21, 2025, confirming that parking charges would be removed effective November 1, 2025, and submitted that this validated his position that the fees had been wrongly applied. The Tenant stated that he had paid the parking fees from February 2024 until October 2025 and sought reimbursement for those months. The Landlord responded that the parking fee had been clearly listed as an additional charge in the tenancy agreement and formed part of the agreed terms. The Landlord explained that the later decision to remove parking charges reflected a policy change and did not constitute an admission that the original charges were invalid. The Landlord further submitted that the Tenant had used the parking stall throughout the tenancy, and therefore, the charges were appropriate until the policy change took effect. According to the October 21, 2025 letter, the decision followed a review of current market rental rates and consultation with the property owner. The stated purpose was to provide financial relief and demonstrate a commitment to affordability for tenants. This change applied prospectively, effective November 1, 2025, and was accompanied by a revision of tenancy agreements to reflect that one parking stall and one storage unit would now be included at no extra cost. The Landlord emphasized that this was a discretionary adjustment to support tenants, rather than an acknowledgment that previous parking charges were improper. [15] These are the same issues raised by the Petitioner at this judicial review. [16] The arbitrator determined that the tenancy agreement governed this dispute. This interpretation of the tenancy agreement and the RTA was clearly open to the arbitrator. It is consistent with the logic that the arbitrator used in resolving the issue of the rental increase and follows the same interpretive formula. I see no interpretative error in this analysis. Compensation for the lack of a storage locker. [17] The arbitrator summarized the issues with respect to compensation for the storage locker as follows: The Tenant contends that he is entitled to $75.00 per month throughout the tenancy (21 months, totaling $1,575.00), for the Landlord's failure to provide him with a storage locker that he says was included with the tenancy agreement. The Tenant asserts that this constitutes a failure to deliver a contracted service under both the tenancy agreement and the program terms. The Tenant also requested immediate allocation of the storage locker associated with his unit and indicated that failure to address this issue would be added to his RTB dispute as evidence of misrepresentation and non-compliance with the tenancy terms. The Landlord referenced section 3 of the tenancy agreement, a screenshot of which appears in the immediately preceding section and stated that a storage locker was not included with the tenancy. The Landlord explained that storage was listed as an optional service and that the Tenant was never charged for it. The Landlord further noted that the later decision to remove storage charges effective November 1, 2025, was a policy change intended to improve affordability and did not retroactively entitle the Tenant to compensation. [18] These are the same issues raised by the petitioner at this judicial review. [19] The arbitrator found, based on the wording of the tenancy agreement, that a storage locker was not included in the rental agreement. Therefore, a change in policy that people with storage lockers would not be charged for them did not entitle the petitioner to retroactive reimbursement for something that he did not have and was not paying for. This interpretation, again, was clearly open to be found by the arbitrator and is consistent with his interpretation that the dispute is governed by the tenancy agreement and the RTA. That there is a further half‑month rent for the HVAC issues for loss of quiet enjoyment by the petitioner. [20] The arbitrator summarized the issues with respect to compensation for a further rent reduction due to the HVAC issues as follows: The Tenant asserted that he was entitled to half a month's rent because, when he moved into the unit in February 2024, significant HVAC issues rendered part of the space unusable. He described the suite as partially uninhabitable during that time and argued that this amounted to a failure to provide a completely habitable rental unit. Based on the monthly rent of $2,293.00, he calculated half a month's rent as $1,146.50 and requested that this amount be credited immediately. He framed this as compensation for loss of use and as part of his broader claim for monetary relief under the tenancy agreement and program terms. The Tenant did not incur any additional expenses related to this issue. The Landlord acknowledged the HVAC issue and stated that compensation had already been provided. Specifically, the Landlord applied a $300.00 rent adjustment for February 2024 to address the inconvenience caused when the duct issue made part of the unit cold. The Landlord explained that this adjustment was intended to resolve the matter and that the Tenant had accepted it. The Landlord maintained that the Tenant accepted the adjustment without further complaint and considered the matter settled. The Landlord argued that any further claim for half a month's rent was unwarranted, given the short duration of the issue, the provision of a space heater, and the completion of repairs by the end of February. [21] These are the same issues raised by the petitioner at this judicial review. [22] The arbitrator in my view, properly instructed himself on the applicability of s. 28 of the RTA in considering this issue. The arbitrator concluded that: Section 28 of the Residential Tenancy Act provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of a rental unit, including reasonable privacy, freedom from unreasonable disturbances, and use of common areas. Residential Tenancy Policy Guideline 6 - Entitlement to Quiet Enjoyment - offers guidance in assessing such claims. The Guideline states that a landlord must ensure a tenant's entitlement to quiet enjoyment is protected, and a breach occurs where there is substantial interference with the tenant's ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the premises. A breach may arise where the landlord directly causes the interference or is aware of an interference and fails to take reasonable steps to correct it. The disturbance must be frequent and ongoing. In determining whether a breach has occurred, an arbitrator must consider the seriousness of the situation, the extent of the tenant's loss of use, the duration of the interference, the value of the loss to the tenancy, and the reasonableness of the landlord's actions. In this case, the evidence supports the Landlord's position that the HVAC issue in February 2024 was temporary, promptly addressed, and mitigated by the provision of a space heater. While the Tenant may have experienced some inconvenience, the adjustment of $300.00 to the rent was reasonable given the short duration of the problem. There is no evidence that the unit was entirely uninhabitable or that the Tenant raised further concerns after accepting the adjustment. Accordingly, I find that the Tenant is not entitled to an additional credit of $1,146.50. [23] Although the tenant advised that the HVAC was not fixed, that it was an ongoing issue and there were still problems associated with the HVAC, this is due to the fact that the issue with the HVAC could not be entirely fixed, which is why it was replaced with a heater. The primary concern with the HVAC that could not be fixed was that an alternative could and was provided in the form of a heater. [24] In my view, providing the heater to alleviate the issue provided sufficient evidence for the arbitrator to conclude that the landlord took reasonable steps to correct this issue. That is, there was evidence that supported the arbitrator's finding on this issue, and therefore his findings cannot and should not be disturbed at this review. Harassment and retaliatory conduct impacting an ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the premises. [25] The arbitrator summarized the issues for conduct impacting the petitioner's ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the premises as follows: The Tenant claimed $3,000.00 for loss of quiet enjoyment throughout the tenancy, asserting that his ability to use and enjoy the rental unit had been substantially interfered with. He alleged that the Landlord's actions and omissions created a stressful and disruptive living environment. The Tenant described instances of harassment and retaliation, claiming that repeated communications regarding rent disputes, parking fees, and alleged lease violations were intimidating and intended to pressure him to pay disputed amounts or vacate the unit. The Tenant also raised concerns about the Landlord's failure to respond to requests in a timely manner. He stated that inquiries about maintenance, clarification of charges, and access to the storage locker were not addressed promptly, leaving him without essential services or uncertain about his rights under the tenancy agreement. In addition, the Tenant argued that certain service issues interfered with his quiet enjoyment. He cited the temporary HVAC problem in February 2024, delays in allocation of the storage locker, and the application of disputed parking charges as examples of interference with services promised under the tenancy agreement and program terms. The Tenant submitted that these issues, taken together, caused ongoing stress, diminished the value of the tenancy, and limited his ordinary and lawful use of the unit. The Landlord acknowledged that some issues arose during the tenancy but maintained that any disturbances were temporary and promptly addressed. HVAC repairs were completed in February 2024, with a space heater provided and a $300.00 rent adjustment applied. The Landlord noted that parking and storage charges were lawful and included in the tenancy agreement, and that the Tenant had full access to the services. The Landlord denied any harassment or retaliatory conduct, explaining that communications regarding rent, parking, and tenancy obligations were part of normal administration and not intended to intimidate the Tenant. The Landlord also asserted that any delays in responding to Tenant inquiries were minor and did not constitute a substantial interference. [26] These are the same issues raised by the Petitioner at this judicial review. [27] The arbitrator reviewed the appropriate considerations applying to this aspect of entitlement to quiet enjoyment: As stated earlier, Section 28 of the Residential Tenancy Act provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of a rental unit, including reasonable privacy, freedom from unreasonable disturbances, and use of common areas. Residential Tenancy Policy Guideline 6 - Entitlement to Quiet Enjoyment - offers guidance in assessing such claims. The Guideline states that a landlord must ensure a tenant's entitlement to quiet enjoyment is protected, and a breach occurs where there is substantial interference with the tenant's ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the premises. A breach may arise where the landlord directly causes the interference or is aware of an interference and fails to take reasonable steps to correct it. Generally, the disturbance must be frequent and ongoing. In determining whether a breach has occurred, an arbitrator must consider the seriousness of the situation, the extent of the tenant's loss of use, the duration of the interference, the value of the loss to the tenancy, and the reasonableness of the landlord's actions. [28] The arbitrator reviewed the petitioner's evidence and the landlord's evidence and the landlord's evidence and determined that, although: Upon review of the evidence, I find that while the Tenant experienced some inconvenience, the issues raised were temporary, isolated, or promptly mitigated. The HVAC problem was corrected quickly, the parking and storage arrangements were lawful and available and there is no evidence that the landlord engaged in harassment or retaliatory conduct. As such, the tenant has not demonstrated substantial ongoing interference with his right to quiet enjoyment under section 28 of the Residential Tenancy Act. [29] The arbitrator determined that the timing of the interference was discrete and reasonable. In my view, this evidentiary finding was open to the arbitrator to make. I understand the petitioner has a different interpretation of these events. However, the findings of the arbitrator were logical and consistent with the contemporaneous written evidence. I see no basis for interfering with his findings on this issue. Is the petitioner entitled to retroactive rent reduction from November 24, 2020? [30] The arbitrator summarized the issues with respect to an entitlement to retroactive rent reduction as follows: The rent for the unit in the tenancy agreement was $2,293.00. The Tenant claimed it should have been $2,025.00. He argued that rent should have been 25% below market and requested a retroactive reduction beginning from the start of the tenancy. He framed this as a valuation remedy under section 65 of the Residential Tenancy Act, asserting a sustained "loss of use or value" of the unit as delivered and contending that the Landlord's "below-market" program committed to maintaining rents at least 25% under market. The Tenant described persistent deficiencies and diminished livability, including HVAC and building-systems issues, and maintained that, although he paid the posted rent, what he paid exceeded the unit's true value. He relied on program communications and municipal materials, indicating that the below-market operating model targeted 25% under market, and he referenced market data to argue that a fair recalculation should set his rent at approximately $2,000.00 for a two-bedroom unit, inclusive of a parking stall and excluding any added storage fee, with credits for overpayments from the start of the claimed period forward. He also said he raised concerns repeatedly and that the Landlord's responses were delayed or inconsistent, escalating only after he pressed senior management in 2025. The Landlord disputed the Tenant's claim for a retroactive rent reduction. The Landlord stated that the tenancy agreement set the rent at the agreed amount and that annual increases were applied in accordance with the Residential Tenancy Act. The Landlord acknowledged the HVAC issue at move-in but said it was temporary, mitigated by providing a space heater, and repaired by the end of February 2024. The Landlord noted that a $300.00 rent adjustment was given at that time and accepted by the Tenant, which they considered a full and final resolution of that matter. On the Tenant's argument that rent should have been 25% below market, the Landlord said the program's below-market positioning did not create a contractual obligation to maintain a floating discount tied to market fluctuations. They emphasized that the tenancy agreement did not include any clause guaranteeing a 25% reduction from market rates. The Landlord also pointed out that the Tenant continued to occupy the unit and pay rent without contemporaneous objection for most of the tenancy, and that the claim was raised long after the fact. [31] These are the same issues raised by the petitioner at this judicial review. [32] The arbitrator assessed the tenant's complaints on this issue as falling within s. 65 of the RTA: Section 65 of the Residential Tenancy Act allows for a rent reduction where a landlord's non-compliance results in a loss of use or value of the rental unit. The Tenant's claim relied on two propositions: (1) that the unit's condition and persistent deficiencies diminished its value, and (2) that the Landlord's program required rent to be maintained at least 25% below market. [33] He reiterated his earlier findings that there were no unresolved persistent deficiencies that would justify a reduction in rent. He also addressed the key issue raised by the petitioner and what he said is his fundamental concern. That is, the initial rent set out in the tenancy agreement exceeded the 25 percent below market and should therefore be reduced retroactively. [34] The arbitrator determined that the tenancy agreement stipulated a discrete amount of rent and that the rent in the tenancy agreement governed the dispute. This was the same reasoning elaborated in point 1, which I have already noted. I have already determined this is an interpretation that was open to the arbitrator to make. Is the petitioner entitled to an order that the landlord charge a lower rent consistent with the 25 percent below‑market program to which his unit belongs? [35] This argument was rejected for the same reasons as point 1 and 6 as I have just referred to. I have already determined that this was an interpretation that was open to the arbitrator to make. Issues Raised by the Petitioner re: Review [36] The petitioner claims that when he appealed this matter to the review panel, they erred in not considering that the landlord issued him additional invoices for repairs after the initial hearing. These invoices pertained to repairs that were necessary and made by the landlord. I do not see them as relevant to the issues discussed in the hearing. If I am mistaken, I believe they would not have affected the outcome, as they align with the landlord's previous conduct and would not, in my view, change the finding that the landlord was not harassing or retaliating against the petitioner. Overall Fairness [37] The petitioner says it is unfair to evict him because he only wished to challenge the rent charged by the landlord, which he believes was not compliant with the BC Housing program for him and all of the tenants in the building. His position is that the landlord has been retaliated against him because of this position; and that he should not be evicted as he has been doing this for the benefit of everyone in the building. [38] The fact that he should not be evicted was not directly raised at the hearing. The RTA entitles the landlord to his notice of possession. This was granted. I am not aware of any authority that would support the petitioner's position. I have already noted that the authority relied upon by the petitioner in my view is not consistent with what it said, and really the only inference that I draw from that is that it is a hallucination. [39] The landlord has the legal right to possession and is entitled to vacant possession of the apartment. It is clear that this will cause significant hardship to the petitioner. There are compelling circumstances for the landlord to refrain from exercising his right of possession. However, the landlord has a legal right of possession and may exercise it if he wishes to do so. [40] The petitioner was warned about the consequences of withholding rent and could have filed an application challenging whether the rent was 25 percent below market value without withholding the rent increase. The landlord made it clear that it would not tolerate him unilaterally withholding the rent and gave him an opportunity to resolve the arrears after serving him with the eviction notice. The petitioner chose to keep the rent in arrears despite being able to pay. In my view, the landlord is entitled to vacant possession. [41] Okay. I would like to hear from the parties regarding any issues arising from these reasons. So specifically, right now there is a stay of the order of vacant possession, so what timeframes are we looking at for vacant possession? [42] CNSL J. MARYNIUK: Hi, Justice. My understanding is we're prepared to give Mr. Singh to the end of the month. He's, you know, been overholding for since October, and I don't know how long he's going to need. But that is what I think our client's prepared to do ‑‑ [43] THE COURT: So when you're saying overholding, is he paying any rent, or he's just not paying what he says is the amount in dispute? [44] CNSL J. MARYNIUK: My understanding is he's not paying the amount in dispute. [45] THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from the petitioner. [46] So what they have said is there is rent that is owed to them, which is the amount of the dispute. That is not being paid, so they want their vacant possession as soon as reasonably possible, what's your position on when you can vacate the apartment? [47] THE PETITIONER: Well, first of all, my understanding was law allows me to put two options as for as whenever the notice to end the tenancy is, when either to pay the rent or to dispute it. So if I disputed it and the disputes have gone into different courts and it hasn't been resolved, I will wait for the disputes to get resolved before I pay. [48] THE COURT: I don't understand your position. There is a dispute over the rent increase and also the base amount of rent. In my view, that dispute has been resolved. Initially, it was resolved by the RTB, and then the RTB issued an order of possession. Now it has come up to me. Now, look, if you want to exercise or you intend to exercise a right of appeal, I understand that and that is fine, but in the meantime, there ‑‑ as part of my reasons, I need to issue an order for right of vacant possession. And you've been up through a number of levels of appeal, and what the landlord's saying is, we want you out by the end of the month because your arrears continues to grow and you're not paying any of it. [49] So I guess my question is, how do you want to respond to that? Because the landlord is entitled to vacant possession, and what I am considering now are terms and/or timing. I understand that you wish to appeal, and if what you're saying is that, I need some time so I can make an appeal and perhaps obtain a stay, fair enough. I also understand that you have no intention of paying the amount of arrears. Is that what you're saying, or are you saying something else? [50] THE PETITIONER: Yeah, I am saying something else for a long time, and I feel that I am not being heard properly. I think the primary concern I have raised, ‑‑ and I will break the statement of the opposing party into two statements. They said that I am not paying the rent, so they want it to be vacated in five, seven days left in this month. So I am saying that I am answering the first part. There is no point that I am not paying. I am just in the legal process that determines what I need to pay. So as soon as I have that clarity, they will have it. [51] Now, this was the first thing I raised in my hearing, that the intent here is to enforce eviction rather than to resolve the matter. So now I come to the second part, if I continue to be misheard or misinterpreted that I am not paying at that ‑‑ that is the position being upheld with by everyone, including the courts, then I will ‑‑ how can I vacate it in ‑‑ within five, seven days? And ‑‑ and I have several obligations to meet. So first part of the sentence doesn't hold valid at all, and second part of the ‑‑ this thing, their position, leads to a significant hardship, which I ‑‑ I am an accountant. I am already ‑‑ my work is seasonal, and I have the ‑‑ way I presented my ‑‑ and I ‑‑ this is being considered as hallucination, but I can only say on 5th of January I was in the court, half slept during the New Years and everything, so ‑‑ so being self‑represented, learning all legal aspects to it. [52] So I can just say that I need at least until the end of May to ‑‑ get into a stable situation. And nowhere I've said that this issue is ‑‑ not resolvable. It just seems that they want to enforce an eviction, and ‑‑ the legal system is supporting them. [53] THE COURT: I understand. Now, here's ‑‑ let me just make sure that I understand. You're ‑‑ what you're saying. You're saying that what you've been doing all along is trying to challenge whether the rent being charged is legal. However, you have also been withholding the increase in rent. [54] The RTB considered both of these issues and they said you lose. They also said you can't unilateral withhold rent. [55] I understand that you're saying you have not been heard ‑‑ as I read the RTB reasons, I look at it and I say the RTB did hear what you said, however; they disagreed with your position and said that the entire dispute is governed by the legislation and tenancy agreement. What I am saying is that issue has been dealt with in this forum. The rent increase is legal. You're in arrears. That does not mean you haven't been heard; it means that the RTB disagreed with your interpretation of the situation. [56] THE COURT: You've been repeatedly told that you cannot unilaterally withhold the rent increase. You can challenge the increase, but you cannot unilaterally withhold it. And if you do unilaterally withhold it, you're going to be evicted. [57] I understand you are refusing to pay any increase in rent and any arrears and want this dispute resolved legally. Your refusal to pay the increase while this is being legally disputed and appealed puts the court in a difficult position. [58] Now, under the act you're entitled to ten days to stay in your place. That will give you March 23rd. So what I am going to do is given the circumstances here, I am going to make an order that the landlord is entitled to vacant possession in two weeks. Now, if you want to appeal this, you can. If you want to apply for a stay, you can. [59] Another thing you might consider is paying your arrears to the landlord and perhaps paying the increase on a without prejudice basis while this matter is being appealed. Then maybe they may or may not consider letting you stay in the apartment longer, but I understand their position is they are saying you've been ‑‑ you've been told for many months that you cannot unilaterally withhold the rent increase or you're going to be evicted. That has been upheld now and reiterated to you several times. So that is where we're at. [60] So the landlord is entitled to vacant possession, and I think then the timeframe was? [61] CNSL A. COCHRANE: Two weeks. [62] THE COURT: For two weeks. So in two weeks, the landlord is entitled to vacant possession. I would encourage the parties to have some discussion. Mr. Singh if you wish to appeal my decision or seek a stay of my order you will be required to give the landlord notice so that they can attend and make submissions at any such application. [63] Okay. Is there anything else arising? [64] CNSL A. COCHRANE: I'm sorry, Justice Thomas, for clarity around the order, my understanding is that the petition is dismissed, but nonetheless there is a stay that is going to be in effect for two weeks; is that correct? [65] THE COURT: You are correct, the dismissal of the petition extinguishes the stay that is currently in place. There will be a stay for two weeks. So the petition is dismissed, and there is a two‑week stay on vacant possession. Thank you, all. We are now adjourned. Thank you all. "Thomas J."