B.C. rental fight involved claims of 'perverted behaviour' and heating shutoff
A dispute over conditions at a rental home in B.C. involved some pretty wild claims, ranging from “perverted behaviour” to security cameras intentionally being broken, to the heat being shut off.
In a small claims case at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, a renter and her two family members claimed that the respondent, who acted as the landlord of the home, mistreated them.
The applicant’s claims included accusations that the respondent landlords broke her security camera, stopped providing heat, verbally abused her family, and failed to fix a toilet.
For the claims in the B.C. rental dispute, the applicant calculated damages of $5,000.03.
In defence, the respondent claimed that the applicant installed cameras at inappropriate locations and that they had to remove the applicant and her family over her “perverted behaviour.”
The tribunal decision does not go into detail about what perverted behaviour meant, but it could have been referring to the view of the security cameras.
The respondent also denied claims that the toilet stopped working or that they shut off the heat.
Additionally, the respondent said that the applicant “acted unreasonably by obstructing shared areas, causing excessive noise, and causing disturbances that required them to call the police twice.”
While the respondent claimed $5,000 in damages for health and safety issues and “mental damage,” they never officially filed a counterclaim.
Tribunal Member David Jiang presided over the dispute.
An eight-month tenancy was eight months too long
Submissions suggest that the tenancy began on Sept. 10, 2023. Rent was $2,300 per month. The respondent was renting the house from the homeowner but acting as the landlord to the applicant.
Both parties blamed each other for the tenancy being “an unhappy one.”
On May 5, 2024, the respondent provided a one-month written notice to move out. They moved out on May 24, 2024.
Broken toilet
The applicant claimed that in November 2023, the basement toilet started to leak. The applicant says her family asked repeatedly for a fix, but without success. She also claimed that the leak resulted in a moldy smell and an insect infestation. She provided photos that were undated that showed water and water stains at the toilet base.
The respondent said the toilet only leaked slightly at the side of its base and denied that it caused an insect infestation. The respondent also said the stains were pre-existing and couldn’t be removed. They claimed to have fixed the toilet at some point before the applicant moved out.
In a statement provided to the tribunal, the homeowner corroborated that the toilet was fixed, but didn’t provide a date for when it was fixed.
Thanks to submissions from the applicant, the tribunal determined that the toilet was likely leaking between November 2023 and April 2024 and suggested compensation of $500, or $100 per month.
No heat
The applicant claimed that in March and April 2024, the respondents turned off the heat and removed the thermostat controls. The applicant submitted a photo showing the thermostat without its control panel.
According to the tribunal, the respondents complained that the applicant “constantly turned [the] heat up to maximum while opening the door and windows in the kitchen and living room.”
Jiang found it likely that the respondents removed the panel due to these concerns. He found it unlikely that the rental contract was breached by removing the panel.
The applicant was not able to prove that the respondents failed to provide reasonable heating.
Broken security camera
The last point of contention between the two parties involved a security camera.
At some point during the tenancy, the applicant installed her own security cameras in common areas of the rental property.
On May 13, 2024, just eleven days before the applicant and her family moved out of the B.C. rental home, one of the respondents used a stick to remove a camera that was installed in a room corner near the ceiling. The applicant claimed that the respondent destroyed the camera.
The tribunal found that the respondents were not liable for the camera damage. The respondents said, and Jiang agreed, that the cameras were an invasion of their privacy.
“The parties and other tenants shared the same house. She did not have permission to install the cameras, and I find she acted unreasonably by doing so,” Jiang said.
Additionally, the tribunal decision notes that the respondents asked the applicant “nicely” several times to take the camera down.
“I find the respondents were entitled to remove the cameras after the applicant refused to do so. I find that in these circumstances the applicant bears the risk that the respondents might unintentionally damage the cameras. I find the minor scratches shown on the camera are consistent with reasonable efforts to remove the camera without damaging it. I dismiss this claim,” Jiang said.
Verbal and physical abuse claims
The applicant says that beginning in February 2024, one of the respondents began to verbally abuse her and her family “on a daily basis.”
She alleged that at some point, the respondent charged her husband and tried to hit him and that the same person kicked her the next morning.
The respondent denied the allegations, and the tribunal called it an evidentiary tie.
Ultimately, the only claim the applicant won in the B.C. rental dispute was regarding the toilet leak. In total, including tribunal fees, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $621.76 within 30 days of the decision.