BC tenants win $36K after landlord took 75 days to replace carpet and move in

Legal loophole or bad-faith eviction? A recent BC Supreme Court ruling suggests some landlords may be skating dangerously close to “renoviction” territory — using family as the excuse.

A landlord in Coquitlam, BC, has been ordered to pay over $36,000 in damages to a pair of evicted tenants after a failed attempt to reclaim their unit for “family use” took too long. The court found the landlord didn’t move in within a reasonable time and failed to justify the delay.

This case is raising alarm bells for Canadian renters and real estate investors alike — especially in cities like Vancouver, where low vacancy rates and rising rents have intensified tenant-landlord disputes.

‘Renoviction’ in disguise?

On December 31, 2021, Louis and Mary DeSousa received an eviction noticd from their landlord, Harjinder Bhangal. In the eviction notice, Bhangal stated that his son intended to move into the unit and that upgrades needed to be completed before his son moved in.

The eviction notice offered by Bhangal isn't unusual. Landlords can cite the family-use provision of BC’s Residential Tenancy Act as a legimate reason to evict a tenant. Under this rule, landlords can evict tenants if either the landlord or an immediate family member plans to live in the unit for at least six months.

The tenants were stunned and, as the eviction stated, vacated the property by April 30, 2022. But 75-days after vacating the property and Bhangal's son was still not living in the upper floor unit. And the case quickly took on the appearance of a renoviction-by-proxy — when a landlord evicts a tenant under the guise of renovations and updates, only to dramatically increase the rental rate for the new tenant.

Angry at the possibility of being falsely forced from their home, the DeSousa's sought legal action.

But the case quickly veered into what tenant advocates might call a renoviction-by-proxy.

Despite stating that he and his son intended to move in, Bhangal waited more than 75 days to take possession—citing the need to replace carpets before moving in. The DeSousas, who had lived in the upper floor of the home, vacated the property by April 30, 2022, but Bhangal and his son didn’t move in until mid-July.

By then, the delay had triggered suspicion—and legal action.

Sponsored

Smart investing starts here

Build your own investment portfolio with CIBC Investor’s Edge online and mobile trading platform. Enjoy low commissions on trades and special pricing for active traders, students and young investors.

Get started today

Court calls landlord’s excuses “too vague”

The DeSousas brought the case to the BC Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB), arguing that the eviction lacked urgency and failed to meet the legal threshold of “good faith.”

The RTB agreed and ordered Bhangal to pay 12 months’ rent ($36,000) plus $100 in filing fees.

Bhangal appealed, claiming the 75+ delay from vacancy of the unit to when his son moved in was due to installing the carpet himself, while juggling other work obligations combined with pandemic-related labour and material shortages.

But Justice Sheila Tucker of the BC Supreme Court wasn’t convinced. She described Bhangal’s justifications as “too vague and non-specific” to explain the delay, and upheld the RTB’s decision.

“It is plainly evident that the arbitrator considered a period of two and a half months … to generally be too long to be explained by carpet replacement per se,” Justice Tucker wrote in her ruling.

What Canadian landlords need to know

This case is a reminder and a warning to landlords who may consider using “family use” as a workaround to remove tenants from rent-controlled or below-market units.

Specifically, landlords need to remember:

• Good faith is critical: The intent to occupy must be real and prompt. Delays longer than a few weeks may not hold up in court.
• Evidence matters: Renovation delays must be clearly documented. Vague claims won’t protect you.
• The price of failure is high: Missteps can lead to mandatory payouts of up to 12 months' rent—and possibly reputational damage or further legal scrutiny.

Sponsored

Take control of your money with Monarch

Simplify your finances with Monarch, the all-in-one app designed to help you budget, track spending, and hit your goals faster. For a limited time, get 50% off your first year with code WISE50.

Start your free trial today

What renters should watch for

If you are a renter and you receive an eviction notice for “family use,” be cautious. While the law does allow it, you have rights. To help, here are three factors to consider:

1. You can challenge it: If move-in doesn’t happen in a reasonable timeframe, the eviction could be overturned or you may be eligible for compensation.
2. Watch the timeline: Delays longer than a few weeks after your move-out date are suspect.
3. Collect evidence: Note move-out dates, photos, communications, and whether the unit is actually being occupied.

Renovictions and renter uncertainty is a growing crisis

Tenant advocates in BC and across Canada have long warned that “renovictions” and “family-use evictions” are sometimes used to skirt rent controls and reset leases at higher market rates.

This case is a stark reminder that evictions must be more than just procedural — they must be principled. And as this judgment shows, the courts are increasingly willing to call out landlords who cross the line.