Ruling finds Residential Tenancy Branch arbitrator’s decision patently unreasonable
In proceedings involving a dispute between a manufactured home park landlord and tenant before the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB), the British Columbia Supreme Court set aside the arbitrator’s decision and returned the matter to the RTB for a rehearing.
The landlord – who was the petitioner in Port4homes Inc. v Skogland, 2026 BCSC 1062 – owned and operated a manufactured home park on Vancouver Island. Beginning in October 2020, TP and the respondent MS occupied a site in the park under a tenancy agreement.
In September 2021, TP and MS were involved in a police incident. Shortly afterward, TP ceased residing at the park. In September 2025, TP and the landlord signed a mutual agreement to end the tenancy, with an eviction date of Sept. 30, 2025.
The landlord asked MS to vacate her site because it believed the tenancy had ended for both TP and MS. After MS refused to vacate, the landlord applied for dispute resolution and a possession order from the RTB.
On Nov. 24, 2025, the RTB arbitrator released a decision declining to issue a possession order. The landlord applied for a judicial review of the decision.
Arbitral decision set aside
While it remitted the case back to the RTB for a rehearing, the Supreme Court of British Columbia refused to direct a new arbitrator to determine the matter, as such a direction would interfere with the RTB director’s discretion over the assignment of matters.
The court found the arbitrator’s decision patently unreasonable. First, the court ruled that the arbitrator failed to explain how she interpreted s. 37(1)(d) of BC’s Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (MHPTA), 2002, in a way that permitted the parties and the court to assess her analysis.
The court held that the arbitrator’s finding that TP’s tenancy ended in 2021 under s. 37(1)(d) when he stopped residing at the park appeared inconsistent with the statute’s express wording, which stated that a tenant would end the tenancy by vacating the manufactured home site, as opposed to just the manufactured home.
The court said the arbitrator failed to explain how she interpreted s. 37(1)(d) to determine that TP ended his tenancy in 2021 by vacating the manufactured home site, such that he lacked the standing to sign the mutual agreement to end the tenancy in 2025.
The court pointed out that the manufactured home site was not vacant because MS continued to reside there. The court added that the arbitrator failed to identify the authorities justifying her interpretation.
The court ruled that the arbitrator, who did not find that TP had vacated the manufactured home site, might not have appreciated the distinction between vacating the manufactured home site and vacating the manufactured home.
Second, the court determined that the arbitrator did not state whether RTB Policy Guideline 13 on co-tenancy, which the landlord cited, applied in the circumstances.
The court held that the arbitrator failed to address how a co-tenancy – as well as a situation where a co-tenant moved out, while another co-tenant stayed in the manufactured home – might impact the applicability of s. 37(1)(d).
Lastly, the court found the arbitrator’s reasons insufficient. The court explained that the arbitrator did not clearly state:
- her basis for determining that the landlord effectively entered into a new but unwritten agreement with MS by allowing her to remain at the site after TP vacated
- the legal test she applied to decide that TP’s tenancy ended in 2021
- the legal test she used to find that a new tenancy agreement arose between the landlord and MS
