A pepper shaker, a sofa, a mattress, and other belongings came between two former roommates in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute over hundreds of dollars.
According to the dispute decision, the applicant and respondent had once shared an apartment.
The applicant alleged that the respondent refused to pay half the internet bill and kept all of the apartment’s furnishings. The applicant claimed $1,185.86.
In defence, the respondent claimed that both parties agreed that the respondent would pay for the house insurance and the applicant would pay for the internet. The respondent additionally contended that the applicant had collected all her belongings and that she owed the applicant nothing.
Both parties began living together in December 2023, renting an apartment from a third-party landlord. They agreed to share all of the expenses related to the apartment equally. The tribunal found that the applicant’s evidence suggested that the parties had recorded purchases made by either party and then e-transferred the difference.
The tribunal said that “for reasons that are unclear,” the applicant moved out in June 2024.
Later in June, both parties agreed that the applicant returned to the apartment that same month with a police officer to collect her own belongings and the internet modem. She did not collect any joint furnishings.
After that, both sides communicated via text but were unable to agree on the shared furnishings and the internet bill. The applicant began the dispute in July 2024.
The respondent didn’t deny that she kept the furnishings that both sides had jointly paid for. But, she argued that when the applicant came with the police, she didn’t collect any of those furnishings, which the tribunal inferred meant the respondent thought the applicant had abandoned them.
The furnishings included a sofa, a stool, a bed and a mattress, a cup, a pepper shaker, a dining room table and chairs, and a carpet.
According to the tribunal, it was reasonable for the applicant to collect only her personal belongings when she visited with the police officer and to sort out the joint furnishings later.
The applicant valued the shared items at $1,812, half of which is $906. Because the shared items were no longer brand new, the tribunal reduced the amount by 10 per cent to $815.40.
Ultimately, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $1,030.41, which included half the amount of the furnishings and tribunal fees.
Want to stay on top of all things Vancouver? Follow us on X