BC renter sues after being kicked out with three days' notice

grinny/Shutterstock

When Betty Ann Fiola was given just three days’ notice to move out of her shared apartment, she took her case to a BC Court to reclaim her money.

Fiola had been renting a room in David Shaw’s apartment for two months on a month-to-month basis for an indefinite term that began on June 1, 2023. Her rent was $500 per month plus $70 for utilities, with a one-time $300 payment for a damage deposit.

Everything was fine between the roommates until Shaw’s ex-wife came to stay for three weeks. Fiola and Shaw’s ex-wife did not get along.

According to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Shaw’s ex-wife stayed beyond the initial three weeks, and Fiola told the court that his ex-wife entered her bedroom without permission, lit a file box on fire, and ruined her mattress cover by spilling something on it.

Talk about a nightmare living situation.

After each woman complained about the other over text, Shaw decided that Fiola needed to move out. He texted her on July 4 that she needed to leave the apartment by July 7, or he would call the police.

Fiola moved out but noted to Shaw that she had already paid the rent for July and asked about the damage deposit. According to the decision, Shaw responded that they had “no legal agreements, so please just leave.”

That’s when Fiola turned to the court to claim back her money.

Shaw responded to the claim by saying that Fiola had taken over his entire place and breached their unwritten roommate agreement by searching through his belongings, verbally assaulting his parents, and spreading rumours. He claimed that these behaviours entitled him to end their rental agreement without notice.

You might also like:

The court dismissed Shaw’s claims and sided with Fiola.

The decision shared that text messages between the roommates instead showed that Fiola had been invited to move her belongings into the shared space. It also shared that no evidence or witness statements proved Shaw’s allegations against Fiola.

Since Fiola had paid rent until the end of July and stayed there for seven days, the court calculated that she was entitled to a refund of 77.5% of her rent, totalling $387.10. She was also granted her $300 damage deposit back, as there was no damage to the apartment.

Fiola had also filed a claim for the cost of the locksmith who helped her get back into her room to collect her possessions, but the court said she “has not proven that Mr. Shaw should bear the cost of the locksmith.”

Shaw was ordered to reimburse Fiola $729.05, including $687.10 in debt and $41.95 in pre-judgment interest.