Residential Tenancy Award Unreasonable and Consequences for Not Completing a Real Estate Deal

Do you know the ins and outs of the Residential Tenancy Act? Join us for an enlightening conversation with Barrister and Solicitor Michael Mulligan as we uncover a recent court decision involving changes to BC's residential tenancy legislation and how an elderly landlord diagnosed with cancer almost found himself responsible for paying former tenants $34,180. The elderly landlord had his son helping rent the top part of the home he shared with his wife. When he was diagnosed with cancer, the son provided the tenants with two months' notice to end the rental so that his parents utilize both the upstairs and downstairs of the home to accommodate relatives staying over to assist with caregiving. The Residential Tenancy Act was amended to permit former tenants to obtain 12 months' rent if they are required to move out and the "landlord" doesn't occupy the property. The adjudicator who awarded the former tenants the money confused two definitions of who a "landlord" can be. For most purposes, a "landlord" can include someone helping a property owner rent a property. To determine who must move into a property to avoid paying 12 months' rent to a former tenant, however, this term has a different definition. Most contracts don't end up with disputes in court because both parties to an agreement want to enter into them. As the government has imposed increasing conditions on residential tenancy agreements to assist existing tenants, disputes have increased. Provisions that can result in large financial awards to tenants, like the one discussed on the show, will likely deter property owners from renting a part of their home in the first place. But that's not all — we also discuss a court of appeal case where a couple blamed their real estate agent for not providing sufficient warning about the potential consequences of not completing a deal. If, as in this case, someone enters into a contract to purchase a property and then changes their mind and doesn't complete the deal, they can be liable to pay the seller and difference between what they agreed to pay and what another buyer eventually pays. In the case discussed, that was $100,000. The effort to shift blame to the real estate agent for not providing a clearer warning about failing to complete the deal was unsuccessful because the would-be buyers made it clear that there was no circumstance in which they would have followed through and completed the deal. As a result, no warning from the real estate agent would have made any difference. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.