B.C. woman wins hundreds in testy eviction dispute with roommate | Daily Hive

Nomad_Soul/Shutterstock

After a B.C. rental situation fell apart, a woman had to take matters into her own hands, making several legal claims against her acting landlord in a tense roommate eviction dispute.

The landlord also made several claims against the tenant.

A decision posted by the Civil Resolution Tribunal details the testy roommate situation between two people involved in the B.C. eviction case.

The applicant, KD, rented a room from the respondent, LE, and claimed that LE acted unreasonably, threw out her belongings, and tried to force her to move out without notice. KD said she felt unsafe staying with LE, so she elected to move out on her own accord.

KD was claiming a total of $667 in damages in the B.C. eviction dispute, which included a $500 security deposit and $167 for a rent refund.

In defence, LE claimed that KD caused damage and didn’t return her fob or keys, effectively forfeiting her deposit. LE also said KD wasn’t entitled to a rent refund because LE had to evict her due to “unacceptable behaviour.”

KD told the tribunal she moved into the unit in March 2024. At that point, KD said the two parties agreed to a six-month agreement. LE denied that claim, saying that she wanted a long-term roommate.

Evidence submitted to the tribunal indicates that the relationship between the two parties began to break down in May 2024. Both sides told the tribunal they felt the other was “threatening and aggressive.”

The tribunal said the evidence suggested that neither was threatening or aggressive, instead insisting that they both disagreed about various things. Some of the disagreements were about whether or not KD’s cousin could stay with her, if LE could charge extra for that, and whether or not KD caused water damage by using a tub with a leaky seal.

“I find the evidence indicates that neither party acted in a threatening or aggressive manner. However, I find the evidence shows that the parties could not continue to live together harmoniously due to their mutual behaviour,” the tribunal said.

At some point in June 2024, LE texted KD to move out because her child needed to use the room. LE asked KD to move out by June 30, 2024. Other texts indicate that KD protested this idea, wanting to stay longer.

The relationship continued to deteriorate, and on June 25 or 26 of that same year, KD was asked to move out immediately. LE said the reason she did this is because KD harassed her, made inappropriate comments, and tried to “provoke her.”

“As stated above, the parties had no written agreement, and appear to have had no verbal agreement about notice to end the tenancy. However, I find it was an implied term that either party would give reasonable notice. So, I conclude that it was unreasonable for [LE] to require [KD] to move out on June 26, without any notice.”

The tribunal ordered LE to pay KD $167 for the rent refund.

Turning to the deposit, the tribunal ordered LE to pay KD $250 of the total $500 because KD didn’t return the keys, so LE had to replace the lock and fob for $200. The other $50 in deductions were because LE was able to prove that KD had stained a towel and shredded a blanket.

Ultimately, LE was ordered to pay KD $501.86, which included damages and tribunal fees.

You might also like: