Damages and stains are front and centre in this rental legal drama
A BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing allows us to witness some rental legal drama between a landlord and renter that had gone sour, resulting in plenty of money going one way.
Meng-Shan Tsai told the tribunal that You Li Chen ended a rental agreement early without sufficient notice, claiming $1,800 in unpaid rent ($900) and a contractual penalty for the early termination ($900).
Chen also claimed that Tsai kept her damage deposit, so she didn’t owe anything.
In response, Chen said that she gave sufficient notice, so what did the tribunal determine was closer to the truth in this edition of rental legal drama?
- You might also like:
- "Spitting incident" forces townhouse neighbours against each other in court
- Landlord keeps vacation rental deposit over beet juice stains
- Canadian moving company taken to court three times in just over a month
The undisputed facts
Chen and Tsai entered into a six-month rental agreement in August 2022. The term was from September 2022 to February 2023.
Only a month later, on September 15, 2022, Chen gave notice to move out on October 15, 2022, but later revised that to Halloween 2022. Chen moved out on October 1 but didn’t pay rent for that month.
Tribunal documents reveal that the rental contract stated nothing about a partial month’s rent and stated, “You will need to give the landlord at least one month’s written notice before moving out.”
The tribunal found that Chen breached the contract by initially giving notice for October 15 but moving on October 1, two weeks early.
Claims and stains
Chen claimed she only owed till October 15, which would’ve been $450, and also claimed that Tsai forced her to revise the date to October 31.
Regarding Tsai’s claim that she was entitled to $900 for Tsai’s contractual penalty, some other interesting details are revealed in the tribunal case.
For one, it is undisputed that Chen didn’t actually view the rental before agreeing to take it and didn’t know that the bathroom was on a different floor than her bedroom.
Chen also made other claims about Tsai breaching the contract, like suggesting Tsai would often sing out loud in the wee hours of the morning.
In response, Tsai also made some claims, with the case document saying, “Chen left grease and a black stain in the bathtub, a yellow stain in the sink, and hair on the floor mats in the bathroom.”
Tsai didn’t have any proof of these claims.
Chen suggested that Tsai would often leave the kitchen in an unusable messy state and that the blinds in her room were broken.
Chen was at least able to prove that she deserved the damage deposit return, but ultimately, the judge awarded Tsai $1,479.46, which was the amount for damages and court fees, less the $450 deposit.