Renters sued for keeping dog in no-pets suite and causing major damage

Some renters got sued for thousands of dollars for breaching a tenancy agreement and causing major damage to a unit, including leaving behind urine-soaked carpets.

Bruce Voss leased a house from the landlord, renting a suite to some tenants.

The central tenant named in the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute was Charmaine Annie Joyce Mapa, whom the tribunal refers to as Joy. But there were six tenants in total.

The tenants were sued for $5,000 in damages related to keeping a dog in the no-pets rental suite and causing significant damage.

You might also like:
• Renter sues landlord claiming she entered his room while he was naked
• Homeowner takes strata to court over $150 move-in fee and sort of wins
• Vancouver condo owners sue their strata over narrow parking stall

“No pets allowed” is something renters from most big Canadian cities are used to seeing.

In this case, the renters were informed that no pets were allowed, but Joy didn’t recall agreeing to that policy.

An agreement was signed in June 2020, but on January 1, 2022, Voss wrote to Joy about the dog being kept in the suite. He reminded the tenants that they were subject to eviction unless the dog was removed.

Joy said to Voss that she had moved the dog to the mother’s home but admitted to the tribunal that the dog would visit her minor child at the rental suite from time to time.

She decided to move out on August 15 because of the dog complaints but then asked to move out earlier, on July 31. Voss agreed.

Despite the agreement, and it is undisputed, that the tenants abandoned the suite over the last weekend in July. Voss claims they left garbage, furniture, belongings and lots of damage.

Damage included urine-soaked carpets, chewed and scratched baseboards, and other areas that required deep cleaning. The keys were also not returned, so Voss needed to replace the locks.

Other damage included a broken toilet tank cover, bent blinds, a damaged door, and grease splatter in the kitchen. The tenants did not dispute causing the damage, and Voss provided photos.

The tribunal member overseeing the case offered some leniency to the tenants regarding damages. Instead of paying $5,000, they were forced to pay $3,458.88, which included $3,170.56 in damages and the rest for tribunal fees.