When Acting as a Landlord’s Agent in British Columbia, Liability May Follow

In British Columbia, many people assist landlords in managing rental properties. Some are licensed property managers. Others are friends, repair contractors, family members, or even lawyers helping coordinate aspects of a tenancy. In many cases, these individuals may not consider themselves “landlords” in the traditional sense.

Recent decisions from the BC Supreme Court, however, have clarified that the legal definition of “landlord” under the Residential Tenancy Act can extend beyond the property owner. In certain circumstances, it may also include agents.

This development is significant. Anyone acting on behalf of a landlord should understand how the courts have interpreted the legislation, and what that interpretation may mean in practice.

The Statutory Definition of “Landlord”

Under the Residential Tenancy Act of British Columbia (the "Act"), the definition of “landlord” is intentionally broad. It is not limited to the registered owner of a property.

The Act provides that a “landlord”, in relation to a rental unit, includes:

• The owner of the rental unit;

• The owner’s agent; or another person who, on behalf of the landlord:

  • Permits occupation of the rental unit under a tenancy agreement; or

  • Exercises powers and performs duties under the Act, the tenancy agreement, or a service agreement;

• The heirs, assigns, personal representatives, and successors in title of such a person;

• A person (other than a tenant) who is entitled to possession of the rental unit and exercises any of the rights of a landlord under the tenancy agreement or the Act; and

• A former landlord, when the context requires it.

  
  

This wording matters. The definition captures not only owners, but also those who act on their behalf and exercise landlord powers in practice. The focus is functional: if a person permits occupation, serves notices, collects rent, or otherwise exercises the rights and duties of a landlord under the Act, they may fall within the statutory definition.

It is this breadth — particularly the inclusion of an owner’s agent and anyone exercising landlord powers — that has taken on added significance in recent court decisions.

The “Coldwell Banker” Case

One of the first notable decisions to address this issue is 0808799 B.C. Ltd. dba Coldwell Banker Prestige Realty v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Branch), 2024 BCSC 1915 ("Coldwell Banker"). In that matter, Coldwell Banker Prestige Realty acted as agent for the owner of a residential property. The written tenancy agreement was entered into directly between Coldwell Banker Prestige Realty and the tenants. The owner’s name did not appear as a landlord on the tenancy agreement. Coldwell Banker was the sole landlord contact throughout the tenancy and exercised the powers and performed the duties of a landlord under the Residential Tenancy Act.

Coldwell Banker later served a Two Month Notice to End Tenancy for Landlord’s Use of the Property, listing itself (c/o its employee) as the landlord on the prescribed RTB form. The tenants ultimately vacated the property. It was later determined that neither the owner nor a close family member moved into the rental unit within a reasonable time, or at all.

The Residential Tenancy Branch awarded the tenants compensation equivalent to 12 months’ rent under s. 51(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act. The compensation order was made against Coldwell Banker, notwithstanding that it was acting as agent for the owner.

On judicial review, the BC Supreme Court upheld the decision. The Court concluded that the arbitrator’s interpretation—that an agent who met the broader definition of “landlord” under s. 1 of the Act could be subject to a s. 51 compensation order—was not patently unreasonable in the circumstances.

Confirmation by the BC Supreme Court

A subsequent decision of the BC Supreme Court further confirmed this interpretation in Homax Real Estate Services v. Arde, 2025 BCSC 2431.

In that case, the property manager was not a signatory to the tenancy agreement and the owner was clearly identified as landlord in the agreement and on the notice to end tenancy. The property manager nonetheless managed the tenancy, accepted rent in trust, facilitated communications, and performed duties under the Act on the owner’s behalf.

When the tenants later sought compensation under s. 51(2) because the owner did not occupy the unit for the required period, the dispute notice named the property manager as landlord, not the owner on the tenancy agreement. The property manager argued that it could not be liable because it was merely the owner’s agent and not a party to the tenancy agreement.

The Court rejected that argument. Relying on Coldwell Banker, the Court emphasized that the statutory definition of “landlord” in s. 1 expressly includes the owner’s agent. The Court further confirmed that the narrowed definition of “landlord” in s. 49 applies only to that section and does not restrict the meaning of landlord in s. 51.

Importantly, the Court made clear that the right to compensation under s. 51(2) is a statutory right, not a contractual one, and that principles such as privity of contract do not displace the statutory scheme. The petition was dismissed, and the compensation order against the property manager was upheld.

Together, these decisions reinforce that where an agent actively manages a tenancy and exercises landlord powers under the Act, courts have accepted that such an agent may fall within the statutory definition of “landlord” for the purposes of s. 51 liability.

Why This Matters for Agents

The practical takeaway from these decisions is straightforward: liability is something that should be front of mind when acting as a landlord’s agent.

If you are:

• A property manager;

• A friend assisting with a rental;

• A contractor coordinating tenancy‑related matters; or

• Any other person acting with authority on behalf of a landlord,

  
  

it is important to recognize that the legislative interpretation to date has extended the reach of the term “landlord” to agents.

That does not mean every agent will automatically be liable in every situation. Each case turns on its own facts. However, the courts have confirmed that agents are not insulated simply because they are not the registered owner of the property.

The statutory wording matters. When legislation defines landlord to include an agent, the courts will give effect to that language.

Proceeding with Awareness

For those acting in an agency capacity, awareness is key. Understanding how the Residential Tenancy Act defines landlord — and how the BC Supreme Court has interpreted that definition — allows individuals and businesses to make informed decisions about their level of involvement in tenancy matters.

Where there is uncertainty about a particular situation, seeking legal advice can help clarify the risks and responsibilities that may arise.

The law in this area continues to evolve through court decisions. What is clear at this stage is that agents are within the scope of the statutory definition, and that exposure to claims is not limited strictly to property owners.

Anyone involved in managing or assisting with a tenancy should keep that reality in mind.

If you have questions about your role in a tenancy or about how recent court decisions may affect you, our office is available to discuss your specific circumstances.