MAP
 Active   Manufactured   Home   Owners   Association
The Voice for Manufactured Home Owners in British Columbia since 1971

xml link
Subscribe via RSS (xml) for latest news

Get Acrobat Reader
The following COURT & ARBITRATION cases are provided for your convenience as information. Any comments are not intended as legal advice but rather to show areas of further research. They cover a variety of issues such as Equity (fairness), mobility of our homes, repairs to infrastructure. Others will be added in future. If you know of a case that should be included, please send it to us.

We are currently undergoing a redesign of this page to better organize these cases and to provide a clear synopsis of the case.

Further, we will be introducing a new page for a number of important questions that have been raised as a result of examining the opinions and decisions of the parties involved. Click on links below to go to selected section.

When is an Recreational Vehicle that is being lived in under a 'license to occupy" governed by the Residential Tenancy Act, actually a Manufactured Home under a Tenancy Agreement governed by the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.?

The Residential Tenancy Office has a Guideline #9 on the issue but judges are also weighing in on the subject. We have found the following court cases where judges have decided that some recreational vehicles should be treated as manufactured homes and as we find more of these cases they will be posted here.

McLean v. Pilon
Trailer was located on a pad in mobile home park, had wheels, but was not licenced. Action filed to declare trailer as mobile home and falling under Residential Tenancy Act, .

D. & A. Investments Inc. v. Hawley
Increases in rent for RV utilities, contested by home owners in RV section of Park who were paying monthly rents. Wanted their homes recognized under Manufactured Home Tenancy Act and that any increases comply with the Act.

Steeves v. Oak Bay Marina Ltd. (aka Pedder Bay Decision)
Although, the major portion of the case dealing with "Proprietary Estoppel"  the judge gave some good points on the subject of recreational vehicles being used as 'seasonal' accommodation or those used as a 'primary' residence. See paragraphs 107-112 of the Decision.

Lang v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Arbitrator)
Manufactured Home owners resided in an RV Park and were issued a notice to end tenancy. Went to court to get the Manufactured Tenancy Act validated as they wished to seek an overturn from an arbitration decision that they did not fall under the act, and thus the appropriate procedures had not been followed.

Back to top

EQUITY OR FAIRNESS?

Stiles v Todd Mountain

Pilcher v Shoemaker

Erickson v Jones et al

Steeves v. Oak Bay Marina Ltd. (aka Pedder Bay Decision)   
Although, the major portion of the case dealing with "Proprietary Estoppel" to give a permanent right to have their homes remain on the land, failed; there remains some hope for "claims for damages" as can be seen from the judge´s conclusion.

Back to top

MOVEABILITY OF MANUFACTURED HOMES

Clunk v Bowater 2000

Clunk v Bowater 2002 Appeal

Ferrero v Bowater 2005

INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS?

Amyotte v Lawrence Heights 2006
Although this was a case of a park on Reserve Lands, the judge found there were two types of tenancy agreements, the one was prepared by the landlord specifically for use at this park and the other was the common agreement found on the Residential Tenancy Office's website that used throught BC. The judge ruled that there were no material differences between the two agreements (para #10) for the purposes of the issues to before him for resolution. Both indicated that sewage disposal was included in the rent and that the "landlord must not take away or make the tenant pay extra for a service or facility that is already include in the rent". (See Residential Tenancy Act definition of service or facility, section 21, and 26, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Regulation schedule section 7.

Back to top

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ARBITRATION CASE ON THE "NEW PROPORTIONAL" RENT INCREASE OF 2007

Proportional Increase Decision
This Arbitration (Dispute Resolution) Decision is provided for your information.Decisions from one Arbitration (Dispute Resolution) cannot be used as a precedent in another Arbitration. This case was regarding the new 'proportional' rent increase for water charges.

Rent Decision Clarification
The appended "Clarification" of a decision was requested by the Home Owners to assist the Land Owner in dealing with the overpayment of rent for the two months prior to the decision and for the return of post dated cheques.

G D 2007 assignment oil tanks
This Arbitration Decision is provided for your information. Decisions from one Arbitration (Dispute Resolution) cannot be used as a precedent in another Arbitration. This case involves Assignment of Tenancy Agreements, Unreasonable conditions for the sale of homes, Conversion of oil furnaces to gas or other sources of power, Harassment under the Act.etc.

Back to top

REDEVELOPMENT ARBITRATIONS & JUDICIAL REVIEW

A decision by an arbitrator in the mass eviction at a Shawnigan Lake park arbitration has serious implications for all of us. The arbitrator´s decision states that: "I am satisfied that the landlord is not required to have any permits or approvals to close the park." This ruling was made in spite of evidence from the Regional District that permits were required for the land owner to build on the land. The arbitrator went on to say: "I am not pursuaded that the landlord is required by law to have an intention – good faith or otherwise for the eventual use of the land."
This would appear to be contrary to what the law says. The residents took this to Judicial Review and the arbitrators decision was upheld.
Since the Shawnigan Lake decision, other arbitrators have used this excuse to close parks without permits or approvals.

These decisions of Arbitrators and Judges are having a devastating effect on all of us by essentially giving a developer or park land owner, a way to circumvent the need for rezoning or permits and approvals etc.  Land owners can now simply "close the park".
Surely, this was not the intent of the legislature or the Housing Minister when the new Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act was put in place, so what are they going to do to correct this injustice to park resident home owners?

Back to top

These Arbitration Decisions and the Court Decision are provided for your information. Unfortunately, no arbitration case can be used as a precedent [unlike a Court decision in a court of law], as arbitrators can decide a case any way they want.

2007 236895 Mason Bellendean Redevelopment (Arbitration)
Shawnigan Lake arbitration decision (Court)
2008 716002 Seaside (Arbitration)
Green v Seaview Development Corp (Arbitration)
17 Seaview Park homeowners (Sooke) had sought arbitration to settle what they believed was a wrongful eviction and closure of their park. The Arbitrator ruled in favour of the Landlord.
2009 Tradewinds Manufactured Home Park taken to Arbitration by tenants objecting to massive rent increases.
Since losing this case, the Park Owners have issued eviction notices for re-development.

Back to top

QUIET ENJOYMENT & RIGHT TO PRIVACY

This case involves the competing claims of a tenant’s right to privacy and a landlord’s right to protect its property and its obligation to protect the interests of other tenants in a residential apartment building. Ms. Heckert brought this action against the defendant seeking damages for breach of the Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373, as a result of the defendant’s conduct in placing a video surveillance camera in the hallway of the 12th floor of the Building. This camera records the movements of any person in and about the hallway, including and especially, Ms. Heckert’s entry and exit of her rental suite.

Heckert v 5470 Investments Ltd

Back to top

AMHOA, Box 1000, SAANICHTON, BC.   V8M 2C5   Telephone (250) 544-1456   Email: AMHOA  ©AMHOA 2007/2008
The material on this web site does not constitute legal or professional advice and is presented as information only.
We recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.