Case information

Administrative law — Estoppel — Issue estoppel — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that applicant’s tenancy status was res judicata — Finality of decisions — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that tribunal decision was final – Judgments and orders — Reasons —Whether Court of Appeal provided insufficient reasons for judgment

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2016, the applicant was living on a campsite in the respondent’s campground. The rules of the campground include maintaining a neat and tidy campsite, and a prohibition on aggressive behaviour. They provide that individuals renting campsites have a licence to occupy the site for that period, and reserve the right to terminate that licence for non-compliance with the rules.

In the summer of 2016, the applicant had been threatening and aggressive with staff and other guests, and had failed to keep his site neat and tidy. The respondent decided to terminate his licence to occupy his site. He did not cooperate with removal and took the position that he was a tenant. After a hearing, the Residential Tenancies Branch (the “RTB”) determined that the applicant was not a tenant and therefore that the RTB did not have jurisdiction. The applicant sought a reconsideration of this decision; the original decision was upheld. He filed a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking only interlocutory relief pending a judicial review. That petition was dismissed and the applicant never pursued the substantive review.

The applicant continued to occupy the campsite. In January 2017, he was removed. He was directed to remove his belongings, but did not. In May 2017, the respondent removed and disposed of the applicant’s remaining property. The applicant sued, alleging that removing him and his possessions from the campsite was unlawful.

The trial judge conducted a summary trial. She held that the question of whether the applicant was a tenant was res judicata. Because he was not a tenant, his removal from the campsite in accordance with the licence to occupy and disposal of his belongings with adequate notice were both lawful. The applicant’s action was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal