B.C. landlord had someone impersonate tenant in attempt to defraud her of $30K, regulator finds

A for rent sign is displayed on a house in Ottawa on Friday, Oct. 14, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick / The Canadian Press)

A B.C. landlord who was ordered to pay his former tenant $19,570 attempted to “offset” that amount by having someone pose as the tenant and agree to a settlement in his favour, according to a recent decision by the provincial tenancy regulator.

In a decision issued last month and published online this week, the Compliance Enforcement Unit of B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Branch ordered Sumit Ghai to pay $16,000 in administrative penalties for his conduct, which the unit found was intended to “defraud” his former tenant.

Background and previous impersonation

The tenant, who is anonymous in the decision and referred to only by the initials L.S., began living in the rental property in 2007, before Ghai owned it.

When Ghai purchased the property in February 2021, L.S. was still living in the unit. She signed a new tenancy agreement with him in May of that year, and by October, he had issued her a notice to end tenancy for landlord’s use.

The location of the rental property is redacted from the RTB decision.

According to the document, L.S. moved out in February 2022, and Ghai filed an application for dispute resolution with the RTB on April 1 of that year. The application involved “alleged damages and other matters,” the decision reads.

L.S. filed a “cross-application” and—after both applications were heard—won a monetary order for $19,570 in May 2023.

The decision does not specify why L.S. won that case or what the monetary order was for, but it does note that Ghai did not pay, prompting L.S. to file for an enforcement order in provincial court.

Ghai was eventually subject to a 2025 RTB Compliance Enforcement Unit decision fining him $11,700 for failing to pay the monetary order, as well as for filing false documents and submitting an application for review consideration purporting to be from L.S.

In other words, the decision published this week is not the first time the RTB CEU has concluded that Ghai was involved in the impersonation of L.S. before an RTB arbitrator.

Address chosen ‘at random’

The latest decision stems from an application for dispute resolution submitted to the RTB in July 2024.

The application included a tenancy agreement naming Ghai as the landlord and L.S. as the tenant for a property in Vancouver, the address of which is redacted from the decision. It also included a BC Hydro bill, a 10-day notice to end tenancy, and a 30-day utility demand letter.

All of those documents, according to the RTB CEU decision, were fake. This wasn’t known at the time, however, and a hearing was held on the matter in August 2024.

“A woman identifying as L.S. participated by phone and affirmed to tell the truth,” the decision reads. “She provided ‘626’ as the correct address. The respondent, who was also present at the hearing, affirmed that L.S. was his tenant and stated, in substance, that he ‘owned both units.’ A settlement was recorded and a monetary order of $30,074 issued against L.S.”

The real L.S. later told investigators she did not attend the hearing, did not authorize anyone to do so in her place, and had been living in Chilliwack—not Vancouver—since moving out of Ghai’s property in 2022.

She provided her real tenancy agreement, confirmation from her real landlord, and phone records to confirm her position, according to the document. The RTB overturned the monetary order on L.S.’s application for reconsideration.

The CEU launched an investigation, looking up the title for the Vancouver property and confirming that number 626 did not exist on that street, and that neither 636 nor its neighbour were owned by Ghai.

In an interview with investigators, Ghai confirmed he had never owned, lived in or been the landlord at the property in question.

“He stated he selected the 636 address ‘at random’ because he believed L.S. had moved to Vancouver,” the decision reads. “In the Nov. 4, 2025, call, the respondent reiterated that he ‘just took the random address’ and that his purpose was to ‘offset’ the earlier monetary order—i.e., so that ‘I don’t give her money, and she don’t give me money.’”

The CEU decision concluded that Ghai had “repeatedly and deliberately provided false or misleading information,” according to a summary published on the unit’s website.

The unit imposed a total of $16,000 in administrative monetary penalties against the landlord, broken down into four distinct amounts: $3,100, $3,400, and $4,700 for instances of submitting false or misleading documents and $4,800 for the false or misleading statements made during the hearing.

Combined, these amounts total $16,500, but the overall penalty was reduced by $500 as “discretionary mitigation” by the CEU’s director.

“The combination of deliberate falsification, impersonation, and misuse of dispute resolution systems and processes warrant a penalty at the high end of the available range, even with mitigation applied,” the decision concludes.

Ghai has until May 11 to pay the penalty.