I would hope she has some sort of legal recourse here, because fuck everything about that.
She may. It really depends on how she left. But it seems like an arbitrator has already deemed that the demolishion permit was issued to the development company in bad faith, so that is probably a good sign for her!
I am hopeful she is compensated, and that this is a reminder to Langford that this type of activity will cost developers in the long run. I also hope this alerts any other tenants who were victim of these types of practices to come forward and test their case. Ridiculous system, but it what we got.
Renoviction should involve some sort of lien, discharged when proof of renovations, sufficiently disruptive to need vacancy, are available. If the landlord can’t prove they did that kind of work in say, 3 years, then they automatically owe the tenant as if it were a bad faith renoviction. Because, cmon, if they didn’t do the work they had to kick you out to do, in three whole years, they evicted you in bad faith.
In a statement, the developer blames the City of Langford, saying it was given a demolition permit but the city then changed it to require that the house be moved instead."
That sounds like a developer problem, not a renter problem. If the landlord/developer kicked them out early, why should they profit off it?