A horse boarder evicted from her home on a South Surrey acreage for \u201cnon-payment of rent\u201d has lost her quest for a judicial review of the Residential Tenancy Branch decision to grant her landlord an order of possession.<\/p>\n
According to court documents, Justice Y. Liliane Bantourakis on Jan. 28 dismissed Shaylene Fakeley (Bedborough)\u2019s petition, describing the outcome as \u201ca harsh result,\u201d given that the overdue rent was ultimately paid and that Bedborough \u201chas lived in and earned income from the premises for many years.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s role in such cases, the decision notes, is not to re-try the matter, only to determine if the RTB \u201cacted properly given its statutory authority and the information and evidence before it.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the judgment, Bedborough has lived on the property \u2013 located near the Little Campbell River, near the South Surrey\/Langley border \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
Under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), that leads to a presumption that the end of tenancy has been accepted, the judgment states.<\/p>\n
Bedborough told Peace Arch News that she didn\u2019t 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\u2019t needed.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The court document details that Bedborough\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 \u2013 during which Bedborough submitted she had made several attempts to pay the rent owing but had been unsuccessful \u201cfor reasons beyond her control\u201d \u2013 the arbitrator upheld the order of possession, concluding that the presumption of the RTA applied.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Bantourakis noted that Bedborough\u2019s petition turned largely on whether evidence of a July 2025 rent cheque that had been given to the landlord previously \u2013 but was not before the RTB \u2013 should be admitted on judicial review and if so, \u201cwhether it provides a basis for setting aside the RTB\u2019s decision.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bedborough contended a tenant cannot be said to have failed to pay rent where the landlord already holds payment, and that the arbitrator\u2019s conclusions that the RTA\u2019S conditions had been met were factually incorrect. As well, she said that the landlord\u2019s failure to disclose the existence of the earlier cheque rendered the RTB process unfair.<\/p>\n
While Bantourakis noted a \u201cgreat deal of sympathy\u201d for Bedborough\u2019s situation, she said she was unable to agree with her.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe law is clear that there is no relief from the forfeiture of the tenancy in these circumstances,\u201d the decision states.<\/p>\n
Through Messenger and email communications, Bedborough told PAN that following the decision, she was given till May 31 to move from the site \u2013 four months\u2019 notice that she says she had been promised from her \u201cvery first day\u201d on the property \u2013 but that she learned this month that that window no longer exists.<\/p>\n
She said she has secured new housing but cannot move in until sometime in May.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey 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,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Landlord representative Josh Lommer, of real-estate developer Cedar Coast, said Thursday (March 5) that Bedborough \u201cmisunderstands\u201d the deadline to leave, which he maintains was the end of February.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere was wiggle, but it takes two reasonable parties,\u201d Lommer said of the end-of-tenancy date.<\/p>\n
Describing the sides as at an impasse, Lommer said the landlord is \u201cworking through a process\u201d with respect to reclaiming the property.<\/p>\n
\u201cShe\u2019s got animals there and we want to be sensitive to that,\u201d he said. \u201cThe welfare of those animals is foremost to us.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bedborough said the issue has never been about her refusing to leave, but rather the window of time she was given to do so.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s 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,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
She said the idea of the property being developed \u2013 the judgment notes development appears to be in the landlord\u2019s long-term plans for the site \u2013 \u201cliterally breaks my heart.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo many different creatures share the piece of heaven \u2026 much-needed habitat,\u201d she said, naming everything from barn swallows to bald eagles, as well as river otters, as example.<\/p>\n