B.C. renter denied damage deposit return after being caught having sex

A legal dispute that reached the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal involved a renter fighting for the return of a damage deposit, despite the acting landlord instructing her to vacate.

Things became awkward in the rental situation after the renter was caught having sex in a shared space, which is when the renter was asked to leave. IT rented a room from JC in what the tribunal labelled a roommate situation.

At some point after the incident, JC requested that IT move out on short notice, and IT agreed. Later, JC refused to return IT’s security deposit. According to the tribunal, JC felt entitled to keep the deposit because they failed to find a replacement roommate and thus missed out on a month’s rent, along with other reasons relating to the IT’s alleged conduct.

IT claimed $700 for the deposit.

You might also like:
• B.C. passenger ordered to pay for dent because of note left on car
• Customer who didn't inspect vehicle loses legal fight with Vancouver car share
• Canadian restaurant chain ordered to pay thousands in B.C. case

JC rented and lived in a multi-bedroom home, renting out some of the bedrooms to roommates. IT paid a deposit to become one of those roommates on Nov. 1, 2023. There was no written agreement between the parties. IT moved in later that month, and there was no lease attached to the rental. IT agreed to provide one month’s notice if they decided to leave.

IT also received a “house guide” with some rules for roommates.

Something happened that undisputedly caused a strain in the living situation.

On Dec. 21, 2023, IT and her partner had sex on the shared living room couch. Another roommate who was in the home and had left their bedroom interrupted the act. The roommate found the incident “deeply disturbing.”

“The applicant and her partner also left a mess in the living room that night that they did not clean up until the next afternoon. The mess included food, underwear, and a used feminine hygiene product,” the tribunal says.

On Dec. 28, 2023, JC told IT she and the other roommates wanted IT to move out by Dec. 31, 2023.

The tribunal decision states, “She offered to leave on Jan. 1, 2024, and provided an email address for the deposit. The respondent replied that Jan. 1 worked. Based on this exchange, I find the parties mutually agreed to end the roommate relationship. This means neither party breached the agreement by ending it with short notice, and neither party can claim damages for the lack of notice from the other.”

There was an inspection, and everything looked good for IT to get her deposit back. The day after IT moved out, JC said she wouldn’t be returning the deposit.

JC provided many reasons why she didn’t return the deposit, including having sex in a shared space. Other reasons included “physical safety, cultural safety, psychological safety, and lack of accountability.”

However, the tribunal notes that, although it was disrespectful, no breach occurred of any of the terms of the rental agreement.

“That did not give the respondent the right to keep the deposit.”

The tribunal ordered JC to pay IT $760.38, which was the deposit and tribunal fees, within 14 days of the decision.