B.C. roommates' legal fight over heat and rent ends with no winners | Daily Hive

Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

Duelling claims by former roommates ended up in the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal with hundreds of dollars on the line, but in the end, nobody left the proceedings any richer.

According to the tribunal’s decision, the applicant, HU, rented out a room to the respondent, RB.

HU claimed $900 in lost rent because RB did not give enough notice before leaving.

However, RB also filed a counterclaim against IBU, who is the spouse of HU and co-owns the house in question.

RB declared that they left before the end of the month due to the lack of heat, and that IBU did not return their damage deposit valued at $400.

Rent under a “lodging agreement”

According to the facts of the case, HU and RB signed a “lodging agreement” in February 2023 for a room in the home, with a move-in date set for March 1, 2023.

The lodging agreement outlined that either party could cancel it within 30 days’ written notice. If RB failed to give 30 days’ notice, HU could keep the security deposit if no new tenant was found for the following month.

Rent was initially $800 per month, and RB paid a $400 damage deposit. The monthly rent was also increased to $900 in August of that year.

Less than a year later, RB moved out, setting in motion the dispute that landed the parties at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.

“On Dec. 7, RB messaged IBU that he was moving out at the end of December,” explained the decision. “IBU accepted, but referred RB to the notice clause in the lodging agreement.

“IBU advertised the room for rent again on Dec. 7. However, a new tenant did not move in until Feb. 1, 2024.”

Dualling counterclaims

HU told the tribunal that in addition to keeping the $400 security deposit, he is entitled to $900 more because the new tenant didn’t move in until the start of February.

However, the tribunal member disagreed, stating that the lodging agreement didn’t require RB to pay an additional month’s rent for moving out early, regardless of the reason.

“Instead, the lodging agreement said HU could keep the security deposit if a new lodger was not found by the end of the month. There is no clause in the lodging agreement that requires RB to pay more than this. I find this is consistent with the short nature of the initial term, which was only intended to be two months.”

In their claim against IBU, RB explains that he was forced to move out because the house was not properly heated.

“I find, though RB does not use the words, he is arguing that IBU breached the lodging agreement by not keeping the house at a reasonable temperature,” said the tribunal member. “So, RB argues that IBU cannot keep the security deposit, even though Mr. Buenaflor gave less than 30 days’ notice.”

The decision outlines that HU stated that the home was always kept at 20 degrees, and that the temperature was “fair enough” because IBU gets migraines when the temperature is too warm.

HU also claimed that RB could have worn different clothes if they wanted to be warmer, and that the roommate moved out because he was asked to clear out half of a bathroom cabinet the month prior.

The tribunal member explained that while a house should be kept at a reasonable temperature, there is also an implied term of communal living that there is a degree of give and take.

“I accept that RB and IBU disagreed about the proper temperature for the house, and that RB found the house subjectively too cold,” read the decision.

“However, RB did not provide any evidence of the actual temperature in his room or other parts of the house. He does not say he tried other methods of heating his room or putting on warmer clothes.”

The decision by the tribunal

Upon analyzing the evidence, the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal Member dismissed both HU’s claims and RB’s counterclaims.

“I find HU has not proven entitlement to a further month’s rent, and I dismiss his claim for it,” said the tribunal documents. “Based on the above, I find RB has not proven a breach of the lodging agreement that would allow him to avoid the 30 days’ notice required. So, I dismiss his claim for return of his security deposit.”

Neither party was awarded CRT fees or dispute-related expenses in the decision.

You might also like:

Want to stay on top of all things Vancouver? Follow us on X