In my work, I speak with tenants and landlords almost every day who are preparing for, or reflecting on, a Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) hearing. One of the most common frustrations I hear after a hearing is this:

“They didn’t even let me explain everything that happened.”

Many individuals approach a Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) hearing with the understandable expectation that it will be their opportunity to explain every single thing that went wrong during their tenancy. They envision a comprehensive airing of grievances, a chance to detail every slight, every inconvenience, and every frustration. This perspective, while deeply human, often clashes with the structured reality of how RTB hearings operate. The truth is, the RTB is not a general complaint forum. It is a tribunal that decides specific legal disputes based on the claims in the application.

What the RTB Actually Decides

RTB hearings are not about general fairness or a broad narrative of your tenancy experience. Instead, they are meticulously structured around the specific legal issues outlined in the application for dispute resolution. Arbitrators, who preside over these hearings, are tasked with deciding defined legal questions based on the evidence presented, rather than evaluating the overall "fairness" of a situation.

For instance, if your application is solely about unpaid rent, the arbitrator's focus will be on whether rent was due, if it was paid, and if there are any legal grounds for withholding it. While you might feel that your landlord's constant late repairs contributed to your decision not to pay, those issues, unless formally claimed in your application, fall outside the scope of that specific hearing. The RTB Rules of Procedure allow for multiple claims to be heard at the same hearing, but only if they are related and have been explicitly included as part of the same dispute resolution application. If a claim is forgotten or unrelated, it may require a separate application and hearing.

What “Relevance” Means at an RTB Hearing

Two Different Meanings of “Relevant”

One of the most common points of confusion I see is the word “relevant.”

In everyday language, something is “relevant” if it feels important, connected, or meaningful to your experience.

In an RTB hearing, however, “relevant” has a much narrower legal meaning.

Evidence is only considered relevant if it directly relates to the specific legal issue the arbitrator has to decide, or helps prove or disprove a fact tied to that issue.

This means there is often a gap between:

·       what feels important to you based on your experience, and

·       what is legally relevant to the specific claim before the RTB

I regularly see people feel dismissed or cut off when they are told something is “not relevant,” even though it is clearly important to them. That reaction is completely understandable.

However, the arbitrator is not deciding everything that happened during the tenancy. They are deciding a specific legal issue, based on specific evidence. In the context of an RTB hearing, evidence is considered "relevant" if it directly relates to or bears upon the matter at hand, or if it tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact. Think of it like building a legal case: every piece of information, every document, and every statement must serve a purpose in supporting or refuting a specific legal claim.

The RTB Rules of Procedure explicitly state that all evidence must be relevant to the claim(s) being made in the application for dispute resolution. Arbitrators have the discretion to decide whether evidence is relevant or not and may decline to consider evidence they determine to be irrelevant.

Why Arbitrators Stop or Exclude Evidence

When an arbitrator stops you from presenting certain evidence or testimony, it's not a personal dismissal of your experience or an attempt to silence you. Instead, it's a procedural necessity designed to keep the hearing focused, efficient, and fair for all parties involved. The arbitrator's role is to manage the hearing process and ensure that only pertinent information is considered in reaching a decision on the specific legal claims before them.

Arbitrators may exclude evidence for several reasons:

○      Irrelevance: As discussed, if the evidence does not directly pertain to the legal issues in the application, it will likely be excluded.

○      Lack of organization or clarity: Evidence must be organized, clear, and legible. If documents are jumbled, unreadable, or poorly presented, an arbitrator may decline to consider them because they cannot be properly understood or assessed.

○      Late submission: Parties are required to submit their evidence within specific deadlines. While arbitrators have discretion to accept late evidence, they will consider factors such as how late it is, why it was late, the volume of late evidence, and how accepting it would affect the other party's ability to respond. If evidence is unreasonably delayed, an arbitrator may refuse to consider it.

○      Settlement discussions: Any discussions or offers made during settlement negotiations are not considered evidence in a hearing.

The rules of evidence, as applied in courts, do not strictly apply to RTB hearings. However, the principle of relevance is fundamental to ensuring that the hearing addresses the actual legal dispute and not extraneous matters.

How This Leads to Frustration

It is entirely understandable to feel frustrated, unheard, or even believe the process is unfair when an arbitrator cuts you off or excludes evidence you believe is crucial. You've lived through the tenancy, and every detail feels significant to your overall experience. When the legal process narrows that focus, it can feel like your story isn't being fully told or appreciated. This emotional response is valid, and it's a common experience for many who navigate administrative tribunals like the RTB. This is something I see very frequently.

However, the RTB's standard of proof is based on a "balance of probabilities". This means arbitrators weigh the law, relevant evidence, and credibility to determine what most likely occurred. Your goal is to present a clear and convincing argument that pushes your version of events beyond a 50% probability in the arbitrator's eyes. This objective, rather than a subjective feeling of injustice, guides the arbitrator's decisions on what evidence to admit.

Judicial Review Reality Check

For those who feel deeply wronged by an RTB decision, the idea of a "judicial review" often comes to mind. Almost daily I speak to people considering judicial review of their RTB decision. It's important to understand that being prevented from presenting irrelevant evidence at an RTB hearing is generally not a basis for a successful judicial review.

Judicial review is a process where a court examines the legality of a decision made by an administrative body, like the RTB. It's not an appeal on the merits of the decision itself, but rather a review of the decision-making process. The grounds for judicial review are narrow and typically focus on issues of procedural fairness or errors of law.

Procedural fairness, which applies to the dispute resolution process, includes the right to be heard and the right to an impartial hearing. Examples of breaches of procedural fairness that could be grounds for review include:

○      Not receiving sufficient notice of a hearing, preventing adequate preparation or attendance.

○      The arbitrator not allowing you to speak or present your evidence when that evidence is relevant to the claims.

○      The arbitrator not allowing you to question the opposing party.

○      The arbitrator relying on documentary evidence that you never received and therefore could not adequately respond to.

However, the RTB's Policy Guideline 24 explicitly states that review is not available where the arbitrator made a decision at the original dispute resolution proceeding to exclude materials. This means if an arbitrator determined evidence was irrelevant and excluded it, that decision itself is generally not a reviewable error. An exception might arise if an arbitrator failed to seek submissions regarding prejudice from accepting late evidence from both parties, which has been found to be a ground for voiding a decision and returning it for re-determination.

While the feeling of unfairness is powerful, the legal thresholds for overturning an RTB decision through judicial review are quite narrow. Understanding this reality can help manage expectations and focus efforts on strategic preparation rather than pursuing avenues that are unlikely to succeed. See “Judicial Review: A Reality Check After an RTB Decision”.

What to Do Instead

Given the structured nature of RTB hearings, a strategic approach is paramount. Instead of trying to tell your "full story" in a broad sense, focus on these key steps:

1.     Identify the Legal Issue(s): Clearly define the specific legal claims you are making or responding to. What section of the Residential Tenancy Act or its regulations applies to your situation? Your application should precisely articulate these claims.

2.     Match Evidence to That Issue: For each legal claim, gather evidence that directly supports or refutes it. This includes documents, photos, videos, audio recordings, receipts, and witness statements. Every piece of evidence should have a clear purpose in proving or disproving a specific fact related to your claim. Remember, evidence must be organized, clear, and legible. See “Strong Feelings, Weak Evidence: A Pattern in RTB Disputes”.

3.     Prepare Strategically:

■      Submit Evidence on Time: Adhere strictly to evidence deadlines. Applicants are expected to include available evidence with their application, and new evidence must be served to the RTB and the other party not less than 14 days before the hearing. Respondents must submit their evidence not less than 7 days before the hearing. Unreasonable delays can lead to evidence being refused.

■      Organize Your Materials: Present your evidence in a logical, easy-to-follow manner. Use descriptions for digital evidence, such as time codes for audio/video recordings, and explain the significance of each file.

■      Focus Your Testimony: When speaking at the hearing, stick to the facts relevant to your claims. Avoid emotional appeals or recounting irrelevant details.

See “Do You Need a Lawyer for an RTB Hearing?”

By understanding the RTB's focus on specific legal issues and the importance of relevant, timely, and well-organized evidence, you can significantly improve your chances of a successful outcome. This strategic approach not only makes the process more effective but also helps manage the frustration that can arise from misaligned expectations.