Review Considerations &
Judicial Reviews
When an RTB decision gets it wrong, you have options — but the window is short and the standard is high
We've taken RTB decisions all the way through the BC Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal. Judicial review is the work that separates a tenancy lawyer from a tenancy advocate, and it's work we do.
Judicial review has a strict filing deadline — generally 60 days from the RTB's decision. If you think a decision may be reviewable, the time to get advice is now, not later.
What are Review Considerations and Judicial Reviews?
The RTB decides your dispute in a single one-hour telephone hearing, based on the evidence you uploaded beforehand and the submissions made during the call - roughly 20 minutes per side to make your entire case.
With that little time and that much at stake, some decisions contain mistakes. Others reach outcomes that simply aren't reasonable. And in some cases, a decision is flawed enough to warrant review by the courts.
There are two paths to challenge an RTB decision, and they are not interchangeable:
Path 1: Review Consideration (internal RTB review)
The RTB's own internal review process is limited to eight narrow grounds. You can seek a review consideration only if:
-
You couldn't attend the hearing due to unexpected circumstances beyond your control.
-
You have new and relevant evidence that wasn't available at the time of the original hearing.
-
The decision was obtained by fraud - false information was knowingly submitted and used to secure the outcome.
-
Material evidence was submitted late and wasn't before the arbitrator, generally for a good reason.
-
There was an administrative or procedural error - for example, you relied on incorrect information from RTB staff, or a procedural error materially affected the result.
-
There was a technical irregularity - for example, you were unable to upload key evidence needed to prove your case.
-
The director didn't decide an issue they were required to decide - such as failing to address one of the claims raised at the hearing.
-
The director lacked jurisdiction to decide an issue - for example, ordering something the Act doesn't permit an arbitrator to order.
Be realistic: very few decisions succeed at review consideration. The grounds are extremely limited, even as the RTB has expanded them. If your situation doesn't fit squarely within one of them, the path forward is judicial review.
Path 2: Judicial Review (BC Supreme Court)
A judicial review is not a second chance to re-argue your case before a judge; this is the single most common misconception, and it's an expensive one to act on.
A judicial review asks a Supreme Court judge to evaluate the RTB's decision and do one of two things: confirm it, or find that the arbitrator acted outside their authority and set the decision aside. The legal threshold is high: the decision must be patently unreasonable, not merely one you disagree with.
An example makes it concrete:
You dispute a rent increase at an RTB hearing. The arbitrator allows your dispute and orders your landlord not to increase the rent for the next five years. Your landlord accepts the immediate denial but believes a five-year freeze is something no arbitrator could reasonably order under the Residential Tenancy Act, so they file a judicial review.
The judge's task isn't to re-decide the rent increase. It's narrower: did the arbitrator have the authority under the Act to impose a five-year freeze at all? In answering that, the parties can rely only on the documents and submissions that were before the RTB at the original hearing, and must set out the legal basis for why the decision does - or does not - meet the threshold of patent unreasonableness.
-
If the judge finds the arbitrator did have that authority, the judicial review is dismissed and the RTB's order stands.
-
If the judge finds the arbitrator did not, the dispute is typically sent back to the RTB to be re-heard.
Because Supreme Court proceedings carry court-ordered costs, meaning you can be ordered to pay the other side's costs if you lose, this is not a step to take without understanding the case law and your real prospects. We strongly recommend legal advice before filing.
How we help
This is where the work we do before a hearing pays off, and where having the right lawyer matters most.
-
We assess whether you have a reviewable case. Not every unfair-feeling decision meets the patent-unreasonableness threshold. We'll tell you honestly whether yours does before you spend on a Supreme Court filing.
-
We work from the right record. A judicial review is generally confined to what was before the RTB (although there are exceptions). Where we ran the original hearing, we built that record deliberately full evidence, written submissions, the legal basis on the record, which makes a later review far stronger and more cost-effective.
-
We frame the legal argument. Identifying the specific error in law or jurisdiction, grounding it in the applicable case law, and meeting the threshold is the heart of a successful review. It's technical work, and it's what we do.
-
We weigh the costs risk with you. Supreme Court means costs exposure. We'll give you a clear-eyed view of the downside before you commit, not after.
Whether you're challenging a decision or defending one that went your way, we can help you understand your position and your options.
Deadlines on judicial review can be unforgiving. Don't let a reviewable decision become a final one.
Get in touch with us.
If an RTB decision went against you, or you need to defend one that didn't, book a focused advice session. We'll tell you whether the decision is reviewable, what it would take, and what it would cost, before you commit to anything.