Landlord moves B.C. tenant's belongings into hallway at 1 a.m. in eviction dispute
An acting B.C. landlord and her tenant saw a rental relationship quickly turn argumentative and toxic, according to a Civil Resolution Tribunal eviction dispute.
The renter claimed $944 for a rent refund and $472 for a damage deposit return. The renter also alleged that the landlord evicted him in the middle of the night and prevented him from accessing parts of the suite, claiming an additional $1,476 in damages.
In response, the landlord told the tribunal she was entitled to evict the tenant because he didn’t follow the house rules. She denied owing the tenant anything, but the tribunal didn’t see it that way.
Both parties met in April 2024 after the tenant and applicant in the case, FB, responded to a Facebook Marketplace ad for a room for rent that the respondent, DW, had posted. They agreed that FB would move in on April 15, with rent set at $944 per month. On April 12, FB paid $1,476 that would cover him till the end of May and on April 19, he paid $472 for the deposit.
There was no written agreement, but DW said that, despite the lack of a written agreement, FB agreed to be bound by certain terms that previous roommates had agreed to.
“In support, she provided a redacted roommate agreement involving a different roommate,” the tribunal decision states. FB didn’t dispute DW’s claim, so the tribunal agreed that these were the terms of the agreement.
The tribunal notes that the tenancy was short-lived and on May 20, FB texted that they’d be moving out on July 1.
“After that, the tenor of the parties’ text messages changes from friendly to argumentative,” the tribunal said.
On June 13 at around 1 a.m., DW moved all of FB’s belongings into the apartment building’s hallway and changed the locks while FB was at work. FB told the tribunal that DW gave him no reason, and he got evicted without notice.
DW told the tribunal she did it because she felt unsafe and argued that FB gaslit her. She referred to texts FB wrote, suggesting he “creepily and anonymously” said they “had to talk.”
The tribunal inferred she was referring to a text when FB said, “I am going to have a talk with you when I come home.”
The tribunal also said that context matters.
FB had messaged DW to say that his girlfriend would be coming over. DW said it would be a violation of the rules and that the girlfriend would be trespassing. They argued about whether FB had the right to have guests. With that context in mind, the tribunal said the texts weren’t threatening or ominous.
The tribunal called it unreasonable not to allow guests and suggested it didn’t actually violate any rules.
DW also claimed that FB had issues with cleanliness, but the tribunal said even if that was the case, it didn’t give her cause to evict him without notice. The tribunal added that he wouldn’t have even had a chance to do a proper clean because she had put him out without notice.
The tribunal settled the B.C. eviction dispute by determining that DW breached the agreement by evicting FB without notice and ultimately ordered her to pay $1,131.93, which included a pro-rated rent refund, the damage deposit, and tribunal fees.