Tenant evicted after removing art from communal laundry room, B.C. court hears

CTV News

15-05-2025

A Vancouver tenant who was evicted over removing art from the communal laundry room in his building has won the right to stay in his apartment – for now.
B.C.'s highest court ruled on the dispute Wednesday, ordering a judicial review and a stay of the landlord's order of possession – finding the tenant had an 'arguable case' that the eviction was wrongful.
Jonathan Petrov lives in a 21-unit building in the city's West End that was purchased by the current landlord Plan A Real Estate Services in 2024.
'The landlord wished to make changes to the building and began doing so. It removed a wishing well from the grounds of the building and announced that common areas would be redone in a 'Bollywood' theme,' Justice Harvey M. Groberman wrote in a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of B.C.'s Court of Appeal.
'It appears that the tenant found these changes and proposed changes disturbing.'
The laundry room, the court heard, was not just a space for washing and drying clothes.
'There appears to have been a tradition in the building of tenants leaving books and art in the room for the enjoyment of other tenants,' the decision said.
'A witness described there being a 'longstanding 'give and take' communal approach' to the artwork, in which residents and local artists would leave art in the laundry room and could also take pieces of art that they liked.'
The events that led to Petrov's eviction were set in motion in April of 2024, when the landlord noticed art had been removed. The landlord reported the missing art – estimated at 20 pieces – to police, and sent a notice to everyone in the building, according to the decision.
Ultimately, Petrov would admit to police and the landlord that he had taken the art and put it in his storage locker – a fact he had already communicated to the majority of his neighbours in a group chat, the decision said.
He returned it to the laundry room in July of 2024 and Petrov was served an eviction notice three months later, with the landlord citing theft as the reason.
The art, the landlord argued, was stolen from him because it became his property when he bought the building.
Petrov disagreed and disputed the eviction at the Residential Tenancy Branch arguing the art was 'the property of the tenants communally' and that he had not stolen it but rather 'acted to preserve it.' He also argued that even if what he did was theft, it was not serious enough to justify an eviction.
The arbitrator at the RTB found that – regardless of Petrov's motives – his actions were 'illegal' and 'seriously jeopardizing for the landlord and other occupant's lawful rights,' the decision said, adding that an order of possession was granted.
Petrov filed for a judicial review of that decision, seeking a stay of the order of possession pending the outcome. A B.C. Supreme Court judge dismissed the application finding there was no case to be argued.
'She found that it was clear that the appellant did not personally own the art that he took, and that his actions were illegal,' the court of appeal decision said.
'She also found that the arbitrator's limited analysis of the seriousness of the appellant's actions was adequate to show that the actions were of sufficient concern to require termination of the tenancy.'
Groberman, on appeal, noted several issues with the RTB arbitrator's original decision – including that the question of ownership of the art was never asked or answered.
The arbitrator's decision also did not explain how the removal of the art 'seriously jeopardized a lawful interest of building occupants' and 'affected the security of building's occupants,' the judge wrote.
The landlord cited 'illegal activity' as the ground for eviction, but the appeal court found the original decision did not adequately grapple with whether what Petrov did was illegal.
'It is apparent that the tenant had no right to simply take ownership of 20 pieces of art from the laundry room, but there is no finding that he did so,' the decision said.
'If it was accepted that the tenant's intentions were simply to assume temporary custody of the artwork in order to preserve it from destruction, however, it is not at all clear that his actions were illegal.'
Further, even if the removal of the art was illegal – an illegal act in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for eviction, Groberman explained.
The appeal court sent the matter back for judicial review, finding the lower court made a mistake in dismissing the application.
'The tenant's judicial review application was not so devoid of merit as to be unarguable,' Groberman wrote, sending the matter back to the lower court and ordering a three-month stay of the order of possession.