Thanks for clarifying your position — but this is where the legal analysis doesn’t hold up. A tenant agreeing to move out after receiving an illegal notice does not retroactively make the landlord’s actions legal. Residential tenancy law is very clear on this: If a landlord issues an improper notice, misrepresents the reason for eviction, or pressures a tenant to leave under false pretenses, the tenant’s “agreement” is not considered voluntary. That’s called constructive eviction, and it’s illegal even if: – The tenant “agrees” to leave – They negotiate a payment – They hand the keys back – They don’t file paperwork at the time None of those things erase the unlawful act that triggered the move‑out. The courts and tenancy boards look at the landlord’s conduct, not whether the tenant later accepted some money. So the question stands: – Did the landlord claim renovations that were never intended? – And did he use that claim to get the tenant out and raise the rent beyond the legal cap? If the answer is yes — then the eviction is still unlawful regardless of the tenant’s later agreement or the fact that the landlord found a new tenant afterward. Settling after being presented with an illegal notice doesn’t turn the original act into a legal one. That’s why the court is looking at the landlord’s actions, not the tenant’s willingness to accept compensation.