New hearing ordered for man licensed to grow medical marijuana.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has overturned the eviction of a Sunshine Coast man facing criminal charges. In a December 18 decision, Justice Laura Gerow ruled that tenant Jerome Anthony Williams had been “unable to present his side of the case” before dispute-resolution officer Bryan Wilkinson because of pending criminal charges. Wilkinson, who upheld the eviction by Holywell Properties, made no record of the hearing, only submitting the reasons for his decision to the court.

“It is evident from his reasons, that the DRO was aware the petitioner [Williams] was following his lawyer’s advice in not commenting on the outstanding charges, and that the petitioner’s failure to comment was based, in part, on his understanding that the outstanding charges would go to credibility only,” Gerow wrote. “In the circumstances, I have concluded that the high degree of fairness owed by the decision maker to the petitioner was not discharged.”

In her decision, Gerow set aside Wilkinson’s order and remitted Williams’s application to the Residential Tenancy Branch for a new hearing before a different dispute-resolution officer.

Williams began renting a house in Halfmoon Bay in January 2006. According to Gerow’s decision, a series of disputes occurred between him and his landlord, which led to six hearings under the Residential Tenancy Act. “For the most part,” Gerow wrote, “the hearings have dealt with [the] fact that the petitioner [Williams] is licensed to grow and use medical marijuana.”

On July 28, 2009, the landlord served him with an eviction notice, which he challenged. Gerow noted that according to Wilkinson’s reasons, the landlord submitted evidence that Williams had engaged in “illegal activity that has or is likely to result in damage to the landlord’s property”. In addition, the landlord furnished information from a peace officer that Williams had been charged with being in possession of stolen property.

“The landlord also presented a petition signed by a number of the tenant’s neighbours asking the landlord to end the tenancy as a result of the charges,” Gerow wrote.

Williams claimed in court that there was no evidence that he had caused damage to the property, and that Wilkinson “demonstrated bias” by pressuring him to move before issuing his order. In addition, Williams alleged that Wilkinson “made an unreasonable finding of fact in relying on the petition signed by the neighbours”.

“In my opinion, the first issue that should be dealt with is whether the procedures followed by the DRO respected the duty of procedural fairness,” Gerow wrote in her decision. “At the heart of this analysis is whether, considering all the circumstances, the petitioner and respondent had a meaningful opportunity to present their case fully and fairly.”

In the end, Gerow concluded there were “several procedural problems” that infringed on Williams’s right to be heard.