A B.C. landlord says his tenant had oral sex and full, sexual intercourse in his own backyard in plain view of the landlord.
According to the Canadian Criminal Code section 174, no one can be nude, without lawful excuse, in a public space or on private property while exposed to public view; it doesn't matter if the property is their own or not.
Anyone who is nude in public view is "guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
Vancouver criminal lawyer Kyla Lee told Vancouver Is Awesome in a previous interview that people who have windows that are visible to the public need to ensure they are not spotted in the nude. It doesn't matter if the windows are a couple of storeys high, either.
But being strolling past a window in your birthday suit is a far cry from getting down and dirty in someone's backyard.
According to B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), landlords are responsible for providing quiet enjoyment to all tenants. Upon getting a disturbance complaint from a tenant, the landlord must take steps to fix the problem. For example, a landlord may need to speak to a tenant about noise if it bothers neighbouring tenants.
Sex in the backyard
In this jaw-dropping dispute, a B.C. landlord claims that one of their tenants was engaged in full, sexual intercourse in his backyard. The landlord told the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) that the man in question was having oral sex with a woman in the backyard before they engaged in full sex. To make matters worse, the landlord added that he has four children living at home, who could have also seen the display, which he described as "outrageous" and "shocking."
The landlord also provided written statements from previous renters who stated that the tenant sold drugs out of his unit. They also claim that he would yell, scream, and kick doors. One of the previous female renters also testified that the tenant threatened her and even tried to break into her unit.
The RTB found that the landlord had met the burden of proof to sway the balance of probabilities in his favour, citing that the disturbances caused by the tenant had "significantly distressed the landlord and other tenants." Particularly, the ruling underscores that the incident where the tenant engaged in sexual intercourse in plain view of the landlord and his family caused them to feel insecure in their own dwelling.
The RTB also ruled that it would be "unreasonable and unfair" to require the landlord to wait to end the tenancy. As such, the landlord was entitled to an order for possession.
