Judge stays the order of possession that would have allowed the buyers to evict the sellers and ordered the RTB to reconsider the matter
Published Jun 12, 2024 • 3 minute read
You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.
Article content
The folks who sold a $3.9 million home on Vancouver’s west side last June, but continued to live in it, can continue to stay for now, according to a recent court decision.
In April 2023, Feng Xia Liu and Lian Bin Feng, owners of a home on West 36th Avenue, agreed to sell the home to Shan Guang Wang and Hua Yun Zhang, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision by Justice Kevin D. Loo.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.
Get exclusive access to the Vancouver Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.
Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.
Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.
Get exclusive access to the Vancouver Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.
Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.
Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Enjoy additional articles per month.
Get email updates from your favourite authors.
Sign In or Create an Account
or
Article content
The sale was completed on June 15, 2023, but before it did, the two sides agreed that the sellers, Liu and Feng, could stay in the home until the end of September 2023.
The two sides entered a rental agreement, which started on May 1, 2023. It stated that Liu and Feng would pay $5,500 a month, keep up the property and pay utility bills. The buyers, Wang and Zhang, would pay property tax and home insurance.
The contract for the sale noted the rental deal and crossed out the requirement that Liu and Feng had to pay a security deposit. But it did specify that the buyers would “hold back” $100,000 from the purchase price until Sept. 20, 2023.
Since the end of the rental period, however, the petitioners, Liu and Feng, “have taken the position that they are entitled to continue to live in the property on a month-to-month tenancy and that rent is to be paid from the $100,000 holdback from the end of September 2023 forward,” according to the court decision.
The court document said that Liu and Feng continued staying in the house and applied for dispute resolution with the province’s Residential Tenancy Act, “arguing that the $100,000 holdback was a security deposit” that was owed back to them.
Sunrise
Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
Article content
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Liu and Feng sought to have the Residential Tenancy Branch order Wang and Zhang to pay back the security deposit with interest and a penalty for the wrongful holding of it. In February, the RTB ruled that the $100,000 wasn’t a security deposit.
On March 1, the buyers of the home, Wang and Zhang, issued the sellers, Liu and Feng, a 10-day notice to end their tenancy due to unpaid rent, giving them the option to either pay the overdue rent or dispute the notice.
Liu and Feng didn’t pay the overdue rent and filed a dispute notice.
The RTB heard this second case in April and the arbitrator concluded that the previous RTB decision declaring that the $100,000 wasn’t a security deposit meant that Liu and Feng were behind in their rent payments. The arbitrator ruled in favour of Wang and Zhang getting possession of the home.
This order, however, was stayed when Liu and Feng petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court for a judicial review of the two RTB decisions.
In the end, Justice Loo found the arbitrator’s conclusion that the holdback wasn’t a security deposit “defective for at least two reasons.”
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Loo noted that the interpretation of the purpose of a security deposit used by the arbitrator was too restrictive in only considering it as related to or contingent upon the condition of the unit. He cited the Residential Tenancy Act, which says that security deposits can be held as security “for any liability or obligation of the tenant respecting the residential property.”
As well, Loo found that the clause in the sale contract did tie the holdback of $100,000 to the condition of the unit when it said the seller had to keep up the property.
“It is clear that the holdback was intended on the face of the documents, to secure obligations of the tenant with respect to the property. The respondents have not been able to identify any other viable reason for its imposition.”
The judge ruled that the first RTB decision should be shelved because its was “patently unreasonable” and the second one should also be shelved for depending on it.
He stayed the order of possession that would have allowed Wang and Zhang to evict Liu and Feng, and ordered the RTB to reconsider the matter in accordance with the court’s decision.
Advertisement 5
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber: For just $14 a month, you can get unlimited access to The Vancouver Sun, The Province, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Vancouver Sun | The Province.