I am relieved to hear that this tennant got some money back.
There seems to be a difference in views on what housing means to people. To the landlords, it's an exchange, a source of income for losing access to space. Landlords think it's fair to evict a tennant if it means they can charge more for rent. To the tennant, it's literally where they eat, live, and sleep. Their SOL if the landlord kicks them out. The because of this, the demand-curve on a demand-supply graph is steep. This causes the sensitivities were seen in the rental market these past couple years. The supply side is also steep because of NIMBY's.
So what happens? Prices go up and quantities don't change. Current landlords are rewarded, new landlords are hardly created, and tenants are left scrambling as they move from place to place, having their entire life uprooted each time.
And then people wonder why Canada isn't having kids. LOL
If the landlord is allowed to continue renting to the new tenants, and the old displaced tenants are forced to rent for higher sums elsewhere, with the costs of moving, this really isn't very much justice at all. It's not nothing, and it's better than 0, but it's cold comfort. This should have been 160,000, which might give the next landlord pause before doing this. 16k is just written off as the cost of doing business, and recouped in the first year of higher rents, 160k would sting.
The best part is that most people can't absorb a $160k judgement, and the landlord would likely have to sell the home they were renting. The person who was evicted should be first in line to be able to buy the prior home.