A horse boarder evicted from her home on a South Surrey acreage for “non-payment of rent” has lost her quest for a judicial review of the Residential Tenancy Branch decision to grant her landlord an order of possession.

According to court documents, Justice Y. Liliane Bantourakis on Jan. 28 dismissed Shaylene Fakeley (Bedborough)’s petition, describing the outcome as “a harsh result,” given that the overdue rent was ultimately paid and that Bedborough “has lived in and earned income from the premises for many years.”

The court’s role in such cases, the decision notes, is not to re-try the matter, only to determine if the RTB “acted properly given its statutory authority and the information and evidence before it.”

According to the judgment, Bedborough has lived on the property – located near the Little Campbell River, near the South Surrey/Langley border – for around 10 years. She was given notice by the landlord (identified in the court document as CH 2 Holdings Ltd., CH 3 Holdings Ltd. and CH 4 Holdings Ltd.) after two rent cheques bounced last summer and she neither paid the amount owing nor applied for dispute resolution with the RTB within five days.

Under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), that leads to a presumption that the end of tenancy has been accepted, the judgment states.

Bedborough told Peace Arch News that she didn’t launch a dispute because she had sent a corrected cheque ahead of receiving the end-of-tenancy notice, not realizing Canada Post delays at the time meant the payment would not arrive before the deadline and believing therefore that the step wasn’t needed.

There was much confusion around rent in the months leading up to the notice, she added, naming post-dated cheques as well as repair expenses that led to payment credits.

The court document details that Bedborough’s landlord had credited her in the first half of 2025 for money she spent on repairs to the property. The credit covered her June rent in full, as well as part of her July rent, the document notes.

Bedborough provided a cheque for the balance; however, it was returned for insufficient funds, the judgment continues. A second cheque for the same amount also bounced.

She told the RTB that two subsequent cheques on July 15 and 18 were never cashed; the outstanding rent was ultimately paid by e-transfer on Aug. 6.

Bedborough was served the end-of-tenancy notice on July 9, and her landlord applied to the RTB for the order of possession on July 25. Following the RTB hearing – during which Bedborough submitted she had made several attempts to pay the rent owing but had been unsuccessful “for reasons beyond her control” – the arbitrator upheld the order of possession, concluding that the presumption of the RTA applied.

After two unsuccessful applications to the RTB for a review consideration, Bedborough filed her petition for judicial review on Nov. 4, receiving a stay of the order of possession pending release of the court decision.

Bantourakis noted that Bedborough’s petition turned largely on whether evidence of a July 2025 rent cheque that had been given to the landlord previously – but was not before the RTB – should be admitted on judicial review and if so, “whether it provides a basis for setting aside the RTB’s decision.”

Bedborough contended a tenant cannot be said to have failed to pay rent where the landlord already holds payment, and that the arbitrator’s conclusions that the RTA’S conditions had been met were factually incorrect. As well, she said that the landlord’s failure to disclose the existence of the earlier cheque rendered the RTB process unfair.

While Bantourakis noted a “great deal of sympathy” for Bedborough’s situation, she said she was unable to agree with her.

“The law is clear that there is no relief from the forfeiture of the tenancy in these circumstances,” the decision states.

Through Messenger and email communications, Bedborough told PAN that following the decision, she was given till May 31 to move from the site – four months’ notice that she says she had been promised from her “very first day” on the property – but that she learned this month that that window no longer exists.

She said she has secured new housing but cannot move in until sometime in May.

“They are planning to get the bailiff here to move me and the horses and everything out of here instead of giving me like six weeks in that to fill that gap between when I can be here and when I can take over my new house,” she said.

Landlord representative Josh Lommer, of real-estate developer Cedar Coast, said Thursday (March 5) that Bedborough “misunderstands” the deadline to leave, which he maintains was the end of February.

“There was wiggle, but it takes two reasonable parties,” Lommer said of the end-of-tenancy date.

Describing the sides as at an impasse, Lommer said the landlord is “working through a process” with respect to reclaiming the property.

“She’s got animals there and we want to be sensitive to that,” he said. “The welfare of those animals is foremost to us.”

Bedborough said the issue has never been about her refusing to leave, but rather the window of time she was given to do so.

“It’s always been known that it was a development property and was only a matter of time before the day would come that I would have to move,” she said.

She said the idea of the property being developed – the judgment notes development appears to be in the landlord’s long-term plans for the site – “literally breaks my heart.”

“So many different creatures share the piece of heaven … much-needed habitat,” she said, naming everything from barn swallows to bald eagles, as well as river otters, as example.

Lommer said all he could say about future plans for the site – which is located within the South Campbell Heights Local Area Plan – is that the three parcels of land involved will ultimately be consolidated.