Short-term ski resort rental goes downhill forcing B.C. property owners to pay guests

In a case of a vacation rental gone wrong at a British Columbia ski resort, the renters got the last laugh thanks to a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision.

Two applicants in the case, a man and a woman, claimed that they paid $4,500 in rent to stay at the respondent’s ski resort. They were looking for a place to stay over the holidays in December 2023. They told the tribunal the respondents then asked for an additional $2,000 in deposits, “without justification.”

Being unable to pay that amount, they cancelled their booking, and the respondents returned the pre-paid rent, except for $800.

The two respondents, also a man and a woman, based in Kelowna, denied liability. Tribunal documents state that the pair own a strata property near a ski resort and they offer it as a rental for short-term stays.

One of the respondents claimed that the agreement between the two parties stipulated that the deposit was obligatory.

“She also says that she incurred a loss of approximately $800 as she was unable to rent out the property for the same amount. As such, she says she is justified in keeping the claim amount,” the tribunal said.

The price for the rental was $900 a night, for a total of $4,500 over five nights.

A Facebook group linked to the rental property shared some details about the terms and conditions of the rental, including a note that renters had to pay $1,500 for a security deposit 24 hours before check-in. That deposit would be returned within 48 hours of checkout.

One of the respondents tried to claim that there wasn’t a binding agreement between the two parties, but the tribunal declared that it was binding after they had discussed and agreed upon the rental in their exchange of messages.

In an email on Dec. 15, a week before the applicants were to rent the ski resort property, the respondents said they were relisting the rental because the applicants had refused to pay the deposit.

“They said they would refund the applicants’ money once they had new renters,” the tribunal decision notes.

“I acknowledge terms about security deposits are common in short-term tenancy agreements. However, I do not find such a term would have been obviously part of the agreement. The parties had already agreed on a pet deposit, and I do not find it would have been apparent that the applicants had to pay yet another deposit on top of this and the prepaid rent,” the tribunal declared.

That led to the tribunal deciding that the respondents had breached the contract between the two parties, and ordered the respondents to pay back the $800.

After tribunal fees, the respondents were ordered to pay the applicants $984.24 within 30 days of the decision.

You might also like:
• Tensions erupt between B.C. landlord and tenant requiring RCMP intervention
• B.C. man says roommate evicted him after one day in civil case
• B.C. landlord ordered to pay evicted tenant who frightened her