Seafield Apartments

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Gordon Nelson Ordered to Refund Rents; Case to be Reheard

Today, the Supreme Court of British Columbia overturned the ruling that allowed landlords Gordon Nelson Investments to increase rents at Seafield Apartments by up to 38%.  The case is remitted for rehearing by a different Dispute Resolution Officer at the Residential Tenancy Office.

Furthermore, the decision orders Gordon Nelson Investments to return all of the additional rent it collected as a result of the April 2, 2009 decision.

The Honourable Madam Justice Loo of the BC Supreme Court found that the Residential Tenancy Office’s (RTO) decision awarding the 38% rent increase was “patently unreasonable”.

In our reading of the judgment, the four points used to overrule the RTO decision were:

• That the Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) “failed to comply with the statutory requirement” by not considering the Tenants’ evidence. Madam Justice wrote: “…the Officer must consider the Tenants’ relevant submissions. It defies common sense to imagine an affected tenant…would make a submission showing that there are rental units that attract higher rents.”
• That the DRO was “patently unreasonable” in awarding the landlord an above normal rent increase when the landlord had only two “comparable” units demonstrating their case. (In contrast, our evidence - which was disregarded - contained scores of comparable units, in some cases even identical, at similar or lower rents). She wrote: “…it is doubtful that s. 23(1)(a) requires merely two comparator units.”
• The DRO made an error of law by basing her analysis on rents before (rather than after) the regular annual rent increase (3.7%) permitted under the law;
• The Justice concluded that “the officer made a patently unreasonable factual error” when the DRO granted the rent increase based on apartments that were not, in fact, comparable to units at the Seafield by her own admission.

Madam Justice concluded on page 19, paragraph 49 of the decision:

“The Officer’s decision of April 2, 2009 must be set aside and the underlying dispute is remitted for rehearing by another dispute Resolution Officer…In addition, the Landlord must refund the Tenants any additional rents paid as a consequence of the Officer’s decision.”

Seafielders are incredibly relieved at this ruling as the second of three phases of the RTO’s rent increase decision was about to take effect in February.  This would have raised rents by another $170 a month for some tenants, who were already paying $170 more as of August 2009.  These increases would have forced many tenants to leave the building, breaking up the Seafield community.

For more background, check out:

• Seafield Tenants Face 73% Rent Increase
• Seafielders Respond to Landlord’s Demand for up to 73% Rent Increase
• Seafield Residents Await Decision in Rent Hike  Case
• Seafielders Unhappy with 38% Rent Increase

Seafielders have begun the process for Judicial Review of the Residential Tenancy Branch’s April 2 decision to award Gordon Nelson Investments a 38% rent increase.  We have done this for a number of reasons.

From the RTB website:

“4.1.7 What is the process for judicial review of a Dispute Resolution Officer’s decision?

No government official or Residential Tenancy Branch staffperson has the ability to change, vary, alter or interfere with a dispute resolution officer’s decision. Only a Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia can review a dispute resolution officer’s decision based on an error in law, bias, or procedural fairness.”

We are pursuing our legal right for a judicial review in accordance with the reasons stated in the RTB rules above.

Why now?

Timing is a critical factor, between availability of counsel for both sides, court availability, and possible delays in the court system due to the Olympics.

Seafielders also can’t afford to wait.  The longer the time between the RTB decision and the judicial review, the longer Seafielders are paying phased-in installments of the 38% rent increase.  For the sake of our community, we must move forward.

Seafielders extended the courtesy of advising Gordon Nelson Investments of our need to file for JR before we instructed our counsel to proceed, and emphasized that we still all hope for a positive outcome to the ongoing negotiations for the purchase of the Seafield, 1436 Pendrell Street.

Many have asked us over the past two months what the status is of our hearings and of matters at the building. We Seafielders apologize for our silence.

We are currently in negotiations with Gordon Nelson Investments to form a non-profit co-op at the Seafield.

The past 10 months has been difficult for both parties, and Gordon Nelson has kindly offered the possibility of selling us the building so that we can form a co-op. We are confident that both Gordon Nelson and all of us here at the Seafield will reach a solution that will make everyone happy in the very near future, and are proud of both ourselves and our landlords for making such a bold and creative move.

We are happy that both sides are exercising good faith at making this deal happen, and are anticipating good results.

We will be releasing more information about this as soon as we can.

Thanks for your patience and support,

The Seafielders

There’s more bad news for West End renters as another group of tenants are battling geographic rent increases.

The “low-end of market” residents of the Mole Hill Community Housing Society  were recently served with notice of extraordinary rent increase through the  RTO.

The society plans to increase rents over two years, with requested increases of up to 28% in the first year and 20% in the second.

If successful, these rent increases will un-house many long term residents. Mole Hill sets a cap on the household income of perspective applicants, a cap that has jumped in recent years - and so those who have lived on the block for any longer than 3 years are unlikely to be able to stay in the West End if evicted by higher costs.

Seafielders found a website made by one of the residents. She discusses the details of the Mole Hill rent increases.

Residents of The Berkeley Stand with Spencer Herbert and Sharon Isaak.

Residents at The Berkeley were told last summer by representatives of their landlord, Satnam Singh Gandham, that they would be evicted for renovations and that they should make their way out.

They’ve been living in fear of losing their homes ever since, with nearly half of residents of the building leaving out of their own accord just to relieve the pressure and the stress of a looming eviction notice.

The city approved the permits required for the renovations on April 30, and residents will be forced out of the building on August 1 under the renoviction clause of the Residential Tenancy Act - Section 49-6(b).

Today, a few of the remaining residents met with the media and Spencer Herbert outside of the building to discuss their renoviction. In particular, Dominic Schaefer spoke, as well as Brian Garlicke.

Garlicke, who is HIV positive, spoke about the impact of being renovicted on his life.

He relies on services and support in the neighbourhood to help him deal with HIV and, because he can’t afford higher rent, he will be forced out of his home and away from the support he needs.

Satnam Singh Gandham is known in Vancouver for using renovictions to empty buildings and dramatically raise rents for new tenants. In fact, he has used this tactic at several of his other buildings in Kitsilano and the West End.

Other buildings owned by Gandham that have been recently renovicted include 2325 York Street and 2001 Beach Avenue.