Indigenous B.C. land rights come into question in legal fight over rental deposits

A case that made its way to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) focused on the return of rental deposits, and the landlords tried to argue that B.C. Indigenous land rights meant that the CRT had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

The applicants included DR and her partner, TRB, who claimed that the respondents, KH and XH, in this case, the landlords, withheld their damage and pet rental deposits valued at $2,000.

The applicants said that the deposits were held improperly and didn’t follow the terms of the contract. They asked the tribunal to order the respondents to return the deposits plus interest.

In response, the landlords said that since the rental accommodations were located on the Cowichan Tribes’ reserve lands, the CRT had no jurisdiction to even hear the claims of the renters. The acting landlords also said that the respondents left the property unclean, didn’t provide notice to move out, and moved out late.

“They say these issues compelled them to give the new tenant a $200 discount on their first month’s rent,” the tribunal decision states.

Does the CRT have jurisdiction?

To the claim that the B.C tribunal does not have jurisdiction in accordance with Cowichan Tribe land rights, the tribunal member overseeing the case said, “I disagree. I find the CRT has jurisdiction to hear this matter as a contract dispute.”

The tribunal added, “Since the RTB declined jurisdiction and the Cowichan Tribes do not have any law that applies, I find the applicant is entitled to rely on common law, including the law of contract. The contract was executed within British Columbia, and I do not need to depend upon any provincial statute to determine the parties’ rights under it.”

The dispute and decision

On Nov. 15, 2022, the applicants and one of the landlords signed a written tenancy agreement.

The applicant was required to pay a $1,000 security deposit and a $1,000 pet deposit. The respondents were required to pay interest accumulated on the deposits during the tenancy.

Both parties discussed ending the tenancy less than a year after the agreement was signed in August 2023. The parties decided to end the tenancy on Aug. 31, 2023.

It’s undisputed that the applicant gave less than the required one month’s notice, but the respondents accepted the notice without asking for compensation. The evidence also shows that the respondents were able to arrange for a tenant to move in on the same day the tenant moved out, so there was no loss of rent.

One of the landlords agreed to a move-out inspection on Aug. 31 at 7 p.m. By 9 p.m., the landlord had not arrived, so the applicant texted both landlords. The other landlord agreed, and the applicant waited until 9:29 p.m. to text again that they’d been waiting. The inspection ended up happening at 9:45 p.m.

On Sept. 9, 2023, one of the landlords tried to give the applicant a cheque for the pet deposit, without interest. The applicant refused to accept it, not knowing how her rights would be impacted if she did.

Ultimately, the tribunal determined that the respondents had to return the deposits valued at $2,000. The tribunal also looked at penalties for non-compliance.

“Since the respondents took no steps to pursue arbitration to keep some or all of the security deposit, as required by the contract, I find there is no reason to depart from the contract term that requires the respondents to pay the applicant double the security deposit. That means they must pay a further $1,000,” the tribunal determined.

In total, the respondents were required to pay $3,350.87, which included the deposit’s return, contractual penalty, deposit interest, and CRT fees.