Laundry becomes key point of contention in B.C. wrongful eviction fight
A B.C. landlord who was recently implicated in a wrongful eviction legal fight over thousands of dollars said the applicant who made a claim against him was just a guest, not a tenant.
The renter and the applicant in the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, ZW, claimed that the respondent and landlord, CL, wrongfully evicted her before moving her belongings into a storage facility.
ZW claimed $3,100 for a rent refund, one month’s rent, the return of her security deposit, lost wages, moving expenses, and storage fees.
The tribunal pointed out that ZW didn’t provide an exact breakdown of her claims, while the landlord denied liability.
A shared laundry facility became one of the main contention points in the legal fight, as well as the tenant’s official designation.
CL said that ZW was a guest rather than an official tenant and filed a counterclaim, claiming that ZW breached the room-sharing agreement by not allowing him to use the laundry machine, which was located in ZW’s bedroom.
He also claimed he had to protect himself and his children from her. His counterclaim included a claim for damages of $2,436.99.
CL (the respondent and acting landlord) and his partner signed a residential tenancy agreement with the owner of a house. That tenancy began on Aug. 10, 2021, and CL agreed to pay $1,500 per month. CL’s two children lived with him. On Nov. 1, 2021, his partner moved out, and so he sought a roommate to assist in making rent payments.
On Nov. 20, 2022, CL and ZW entered into a roommate agreement. Chinese text messages documented some of the terms. The translation suggested that ZW would reside in one of the property’s three bedrooms, using one of the two bathrooms. ZW agreed to pay $680 per month, plus one-third of the electric bill. She also agreed to pay a $300 deposit.
Because the RTA did not apply in this case, the tribunal agreed that ZW wasn’t an official tenant under the RTA, but that she was a tenant in the sense that she paid rent in exchange for shelter.
A large focus in the tribunal decision was laundry accessibility. ZW said that CL had no contractual right to use the washer, and the parties had no documentation containing terms about its use. Still, evidence suggests that CL would request permission and ZW never objected.
Did the end of the B.C. tenancy constitute a wrongful eviction?
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock
According to the tribunal decision, in Fall 2024, the relationship between ZW and CL deteriorated.
CL blamed hygiene and cleanliness issues but didn’t provide any documentary evidence, so the tribunal deemed this aspect “unproven.”
Another point of contention was arguments that both parties had in front of CL’s children. CL said it affected his children negatively, but again, there was no documentary evidence.
In February 2025, ZW told CL she was going to travel for two weeks and said that CL could not enter her bedroom or bathroom to use the washer. CL said this was unreasonable and that if she insisted on it, he would ask her to move out. ZW said she’d move out in a month if required, but still denied permission to use the washer.
Later that month, CL texted ZW to inform her that Public Storage had very good prices and that if she packed up her belongings, he would help deliver them to her. ZW did not reply.
The next morning, ZW was prepping to leave for her trip, and CL said that she was not entitled to deny him the use of the washer. ZW left without responding.
Later that day, CL texted ZW that she was an “unwelcome guest” and that he’d be packing her things up and moving them to storage. He said he’d deduct those costs from her rent.
CL said that because ZW was not a tenant, he could ask her to leave at any time. The tribunal didn’t agree.
“Contrary to this, I find the parties’ roommate agreement specified a notice period of one month to end the tenancy. So, he could not end the tenancy at any time without good reason,” the tribunal stated.
Movers that CL hired moved all of ZW’s things in storage on March 5, 2025.
The tribunal found that this constituted a breach of the verbal agreement between the parties, saying, “The CRT has held that changing locks and removing possessions is a fundamental breach of a roommate agreement.”
As for ZW’s claims, the tribunal approved several. CL was ordered to reimburse $180 for an Airbnb stay, a refund for unused rent, the security deposit and lost wages. The tribunal also approved some claims for damages for CL.
Ultimately, as a result of the B.C. wrongful eviction dispute, CL still owed ZW a total of $2,115.70, which included all damages and tribunal fees.
If you’re worried about a potential wrongful eviction in B.C., there are several ways you can dispute one.