BC Court of Appeal: RTA Jurisdiction Not Applicable to Habitat for Humanity Occupancy

• The BC Court of Appeal reinstated an arbitrator's decision that the Residential Tenancy Act did not apply to an early occupancy agreement with Habitat for Humanity, due to a lack of intent to rent.
• The appellate court found the BC Supreme Court judge erred by applying an incorrect standard of review when overturning the arbitrator's ruling.
• Habitat for Humanity was granted its appeal costs and costs from the lower court, as the Court of Appeal found no reason to depart from standard cost rules under the Court of Appeal Act.
• The court acknowledged the financial burden on the occupant but upheld the costs award, citing the well-established purposes of cost rules.
• The case clarifies that the intent to rent is a key factor in determining the Residential Tenancy Act's applicability and the RTB's jurisdiction.

For non-profit housing providers and organizations offering early occupancy agreements, this case highlights the critical importance of precisely drafting contracts to delineate the nature of the occupancy and the parties' intentions.

Habitat for Humanity Victoria, a registered charitable organization, operates a homeownership program designed to provide affordable housing to eligible working families who do not qualify for conventional mortgages. In April 2020, the program accepted a respondent into its initiative. To facilitate the transition, an Early Occupancy Agreement (EOA) was established in November 2020, allowing the respondent to move into a newly constructed home before fulfilling all program requirements. This agreement outlined specific conditions for occupancy.

Despite accommodations and an extension of the EOA's expiry date to May 23, 2024, the respondent ultimately could not maintain financial eligibility for the program. Consequently, Habitat for Humanity issued a 30-day notice to vacate the property, which was later extended to August 30, 2024. When the respondent failed to vacate the premises by the extended deadline, Habitat initiated legal proceedings by petitioning for vacant occupancy.

In response to Habitat's petition, the respondent filed an application with the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB), asserting that her occupancy constituted a tenancy under the British Columbia Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). An RTB arbitrator reviewed the matter and concluded that the RTA did not apply, as the parties had no intention for the respondent to rent the home. This finding led the arbitrator to determine that the RTB lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's application.

However, a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court, upon judicial review, set aside the arbitrator's decision, deeming it patently unreasonable. The Supreme Court judge remitted the case back to the RTB for a new determination and stayed Habitat's petition for vacant occupancy. Habitat for Humanity subsequently appealed this ruling. On January 12, in *Habitat for Humanity v. Booth*, 2026 BCCA 8, the BC Court of Appeal allowed Habitat's appeal, overturning the Supreme Court's decision to stay the vacant possession petition and reinstating the RTB arbitrator's original finding that the RTA did not apply, thereby affirming the RTB's lack of jurisdiction over the matter.

The BC Court of Appeal determined that the Supreme Court judge had erred by conducting what amounted to a disguised correctness review, rather than adhering to the appropriate standard of patent unreasonableness for reviewing arbitral decisions. The appellate court found that the arbitrator had meticulously considered the parties' intent when entering into the occupancy agreements, concluding that the arbitral ruling was neither irrational nor without reason. This decision clarified the **BC Court of Appeal RTA jurisdiction Habitat** for Humanity's case, emphasizing that the absence of an intent to rent precludes RTA applicability.

Following its success on the merits, Habitat for Humanity sought an award for its costs incurred both at the appeal level and in the court below. The respondent argued that each party should bear their own costs. In supplementary reasons issued on September 4, in *Habitat for Humanity v. Booth*, 2026 BCCA 368, the BC Court of Appeal granted Habitat's application, confirming its entitlement to the requested costs. The court found no sufficient basis to deviate from the standard rule under section 44 of the Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 6, which generally awards costs to the successful party. While acknowledging that a costs order would impose a financial burden on the respondent, the court did not view it as an unfair penalty, given the well-established principles and purposes of cost rules.

This ruling from the BC Court of Appeal provides crucial clarity regarding the **British Columbia Residential Tenancy Act applicability**, particularly in arrangements that do not involve a clear intent to rent. The reinstatement of the arbitrator's decision underscores that the **arbitrator jurisdiction rental intent** is paramount in determining whether the RTA governs an occupancy agreement. For non-profit housing providers and organizations offering early occupancy agreements, this case highlights the critical importance of precisely drafting contracts to delineate the nature of the occupancy and the parties' intentions.

Furthermore, the **BC Court of Appeal costs award** reinforces that standard cost rules, as outlined in the Court of Appeal Act, generally apply, even when a party faces financial hardship. This aspect of the decision is significant for litigation strategy, as it confirms that successful parties can typically expect to recover their costs, regardless of the opposing party's financial circumstances. The court's stance on costs serves as a reminder that the financial implications of litigation are a standard consideration, even in cases involving charitable organizations and individuals in challenging situations.

Lawyers advising non-profit housing providers or organizations offering early occupancy agreements must carefully draft contracts to clearly define the nature of occupancy, as this decision clarifies when the BC Residential Tenancy Act does not apply due to a lack of intent to rent. It also reinforces that standard cost rules under the BC Court of Appeal Act apply, even where a party faces financial hardship, which is crucial for litigation strategy.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer