A recent ruling by the BC rental regulator found a landlord who was ordered to pay a former tenant $19,570 to “offset” the amount by having someone impersonate the tenant and reach a settlement favourable to himself.
The landlord ultimately paid a heavy price. According to CTV, landlord Sumit Ghai has been ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $16,000, based on a ruling published online this week by the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) of British Columbia, for allegedly attempting to “defraud” a former tenant.
Background and previous impersonation incidents the female tenant, whose name is abbreviated as LS, began renting the property in 2007, before Guy owned it. When Guy purchased the property in February 2021, LS was still living in the unit.
In May of the same year, she signed a new lease with a new landlord. However, in October, Guy sent her a notice of termination of the lease, citing that the landlord wanted to use the unit for his own purposes. The document states that LS moved out in February 2022, and Guy filed a dispute resolution application with the RTB on April 1 of the same year, which concerned “so-called damages and other matters.”
LS filed a counterclaim and won a damages order for 19,570 yuan in May 2023. The ruling did not specify the reasons for LS’s victory or the details of the damages order, but it did point out that Guy’s failure to pay prompted LS to apply for an enforcement order from the provincial court. Guy was ultimately fined $11,700 by the RTB Compliance Enforcement Unit (RTB CEU) in 2025 for failing to comply with the penalty order, submitting false documents, and impersonating LS to submit a review application. The ruling announced this week is not the first time that RTB’s compliance enforcement unit has determined that Guy impersonated LS in front of RTB arbitrators.
“Random” location selection to deceive the court This latest ruling stems from a dispute resolution application filed by Guy with the RTB in July 2024. The application includes a lease agreement listing Guy as the landlord and LS as the tenant, with the rental location in Vancouver.
The application also includes an electricity bill from BC Hydro, a 10-day notice of termination of lease, and a 30-day utility bill payment reminder. The RTB CEU ruled that all of these documents were forged. However, before the forgery was discovered, a hearing was held in August 2024 regarding this dispute resolution application. The subsequent ruling stated: “A woman identifying herself as LS participated in the video hearing and confirmed that her statements were true.” She provided “626” as the correct address. Guy also attended the hearing and confirmed that LS was his tenant, stating that he “owned two units.”
A settlement was reached, and the court issued a damages order against LS for $30,074. LS herself later told investigators that she did not attend the hearing, nor authorized anyone to attend on her behalf, and that she had been living in Chilliwack, not Vancouver, since moving out of Guy’s property in 2022. She also provided a genuine lease agreement, a landlord’s confirmation letter, and phone records to support her claims. Following LS’s appeal, the RTB overturned the compensation order.
Claiming to fabricate evidence to “offset” compensation The CEU subsequently launched an investigation, reviewed the property deeds of the Vancouver property, and confirmed that there was no 626 on that street, and that 636 and its adjacent properties were not owned by Guy.
When questioned by investigators, Guy confirmed that he had never owned, lived in, or been the landlord of the property in question. The ruling states that “he claimed he ‘randomly’ chose address 626 because he believed LS had moved to Vancouver.” He did this to “offset” the previous compensation order, achieving the goal of “if I don’t give her money, she won’t give me money.”
According to a summary published online by the CEU, Guy was fined a total of $16,000 in four separate administrative penalties by the CEU for “repeatedly and intentionally providing false or misleading statements.” The fines were originally $16,500, but the CEU reduced them by $500 at its discretion.
The ruling concluded: “Even taking into account mitigating factors, acts such as intentional forgery, impersonation, and abuse of dispute resolution systems and procedures should still be subject to the maximum applicable fine.”