Homestay landlord sued by tenant's mom for keeping security deposit

An interesting dispute between a renter’s mom and a homestay landlord made its way to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, with the mom alleging that the landlord failed to return the security deposit.

The applicants in the dispute, Wong Po Yan Joan (whom the tribunal referred to as Wong) and Chan Shun Wah (Chan), sued Natalie Robarts for not refunding any portion of a $1,100 security deposit.

Robarts claims she didn’t refund the deposit for many reasons, including alleging that the tenant’s mom made threats and that the tenant himself did not clean up his belongings when moving out.

The homestay family admits that Robarts was entitled to keep some of the deposit due to the landlord’s time cleaning the room but still believed it was entitled to $750.

Robarts admitted she initially agreed to refund $542, but after considering the hours she spent cleaning, she felt it was unfair to provide a refund.

You might also like:
• Homeowner takes strata to court over $150 move-in fee and sort of wins
• Homebuyers' mouldy final walkthrough from hell leads to civil case
• Canada's sky-high interest rates hammering new home constructions

The rental began on September 13, 2021, with rent being $1,100 monthly.

On September 6, 2022, Robarts messaged Wong, giving notice for Chan to move out by Halloween that year. Robarts said the reason for ending the tenancy was Chan’s failure to keep the room clean. One of her claims was that Chan left wet towels and dirty laundry in the closet, making the floor mouldy. Chan admitted as much.

The renters agreed to move out, and both sides settled on an earlier move-out date.

On September 15, Robarts discovered that Chan left dirty dishes in the room, wet towels on the back of the bedroom door and that the room hadn’t been cleaned in several months. Wong responded that a friend would pack up Chan’s things and move out by the end of September.

Robarts said she would deduct a portion of the deposit, attributing the deductions to the cost of cleaning, leaving $542 of the $1,100 for a refund.

The tribunal disagreed with Robarts’ calculations, suggesting she was only entitled to keep $365.48, leaving $734.52 for the refund.

In total, Robarts had to pay $884.03, which included the refund and tribunal fees.