Date Issued: October 29, 2018

              File: SC-2017-007624

 

                  Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: N v. P, 2018 BCCRT 661

Between:

N

Applicant

And:

P

Respondent

And:

N

Respondent by counterclaim

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Julie K. Gibson

INTRODUCTION

1)        This is a dispute about payment for shared household expenses.

2)        The applicant N says the respondent P failed to pay his share of rent, cellphone and car insurance expenses.

3)        The respondent disagrees, and counterclaims that he is owed money for rent and bills from the applicant.

4)        The parties are each self-represented.

5)        In the published version of this decision, I have anonymized the parties’ names due to the sensitive personal allegations between them.  In submissions, the applicant noted her reluctance to have her family and friends learn of these details.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6)        These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 3.1 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (Act). The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the tribunal must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

7)        The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions, because I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons requiring an oral hearing.

8)        The tribunal may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The tribunal may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

9)        Under tribunal rule 126, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may make one or more of the following orders:

1)     order a party to do or stop doing something;

2)     order a party to pay money;

3)     order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

10)     The applicant and respondent were housemates for two years between April 1, 2015 and March 30, 2017. 

11)     There is some evidence that the parties were in a romantic relationship while they lived in the same house.  However, neither party suggested their dispute would fall under the Family Law Act (FLA).  The FLA addresses property and debt division between unmarried spouses who have lived together continuously in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years. 

12)     The only evidence before me is that the parties lived together for one day less than two years. I find that the parties lived together for less than two years and therefore this dispute falls within the tribunal’s jurisdiction and outside the scope of the FLA.

13)     The Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) does not apply on the basis that the Residential Tenancy Branch refuses jurisdiction over “roommate disputes”.

ISSUES

14)     The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent owes the applicant 50% of the rent and other household expenses or whether these monies were a gift.

15)     The issue in the counterclaim is whether the applicant must reimburse the respondent for 50% of the gas, hydro and internet utilities.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

16)     This is a civil claim in which the applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.  I have reviewed all of the evidence and submissions, but will refer to it only to the extent needed to explain my decision.

Claim for January-March 2017 Rent Money ($1,950)

17)     The applicant was subletting from the respondent, with rent shared equally by everyone living in the home.

18)     From April 2015-May 2016, three housemates shared the rent equally. 

19)     From June 2016 onwards, after one housemate moved out, the applicant and respondent shared the rent 50/50.  Both parties were off work for periods of time, and the evidence shows that money was tight.

20)     In late January 2017, the respondent told the applicant he had not paid January’s rent. 

21)     The applicant and respondent differ as to what happened next.  The applicant says that she gave the respondent the whole January 2017 rent, and asked him to focus on finding a job. 

22)     The respondent says that the applicant agreed to pay the full rent if he would drive her to and from the Skytrain on work days, look for work, cook dinner and do “most of the house cleaning.”  He says there was no agreement to repay rent to the applicant and that she is trying to change the agreement now.

23)     I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant agreed to cover the full rent on the understanding that the respondent would pay her back once he was able to do so.  I say this because the parties agree that the respondent was supposed to be look for a job, which is consistent with the finding that the applicant was covering P’s share of the rent temporarily. 

24)     The applicant says she also gave the respondent the entire rent for February and March 2017.    The respondent does not dispute this evidence.

25)     The applicant claims for a refund for the respondent’s portion of the rent for these three months, in the total amount of $1,950.00. 

26)     On March 30, 2017, the applicant moved out.

27)     I find that the money for the respondent’s share of the rent for January, February and March 2017 was a loan to the respondent, not a gift. 

28)     I order that the respondent repay the applicant the $1,950.00.

Claim for Portion of Cellphone Bill ($221.60) and Cell Phone Contract ($369.60)

29)     In November 2016, the applicant says the respondent asked if he could use her cell phone account because his cell phone service had stopped and he did not have sufficient credit to get a new plan.

30)     The applicant says the respondent failed to pay his share of the cellphone bill ($82 per month) from December 2016 to November 2017, when the applicant cancelled the contract.  The cancellation also left a $369.90 penalty amount owing.

31)     The respondent contests this and says he joined the applicant’s cell phone contract because it had an attractive price promotion, and not due to bad credit.  He says the applicant agreed to cover the bill because he “tended to buy more of the groceries.”

32)     The applicant disagrees, saying she purchased most of the household groceries.  No grocery receipts were filed in evidence by either party.

33)     The respondent filed evidence that he paid $81.20 to another Royal Bank customer, presumably the applicant, on each of October 23 and November 25, 2017.  I find that these were $162.40 total in payments toward his share of payments of the cell phone bill.

34)     The respondent says the applicant agreed to pay the April 2017 cell phone bill, but changed her mind in May 2017.  He says the applicant did not give him enough time to consider whether he wanted to continue the contract on his own, cancelling the phone contract 17 minutes after calling him to try to discuss it.  He did not answer the call and says the applicant should have known that he keeps his ringer off.

35)     On April 21, 2017, the applicant emailed the respondent asking what he wanted to do with the cellphone bill “going forward”, and indicating his monthly share would be $81.20. The respondent replied the same day saying he would send her the money.

36)     On May 15, 2017, the applicant emailed the respondent asking him to pay his portion of the cell phone bill, which was charged to her credit card.  The email shows the respondent owed $81.20 toward each of the April and May bills.

37)     A few days later the respondent replied saying he had sent money electronically.  No record of this payment was filed in evidence.

38)     The applicant emailed again on November 16, 2017 asking for payment for a number of household expenses in the total amount of $2,787.  She arrived at this figure after deducting natural gas, hydro and internet amounts. The respondent did not reply until November 26, 2017, at which time he asked whether the applicant had disconnected his cell phone.  She indicated that she had, because he was not paying his bill.

39)     I prefer the applicant’s version of events because there was evidence that both parties were in financial difficulty during this period, which is inconsistent with her providing the respondent with significant monetary gifts. As well, the respondent filed evidence that he made payments to the applicant in October and November in the precise amounts of his share of the cell phone bill, consistent with an agreement between them to share the cost.  

40)     As well, the respondent wrote in his submissions, “I think [applicant’s first name deleted by tribunal] moved out because she got tired of paying the bills.”  This frank assessment is consistent with the applicant’s evidence.

41)     I accept the applicant’s evidence on the cancellation issue. I find that the respondent should pay half of the cancellation charge, $184.95, based on their agreement about the phone charges generally.

42)     The applicant provided bills from Telus supporting the cellphone charges in the amounts claimed.  I have deducted $162.40 from the claimed $221.60, to account for the payments I found the respondent made in October and November 2017.

43)     I find that the $406.55 total for cell phone charges and the cell phone contract cancellation must be paid to the applicant by the respondent, within 10 days of this decision. 

Claim for Car Insurance Money ($310.00)

44)     The parties agree that the respondent owes the applicant $310.00 for car insurance.

45)      Accordingly, I order the respondent to pay the applicant $310.00 for car insurance.

Summary - Claim

46)     I have found that the respondent owes the applicant $2666.55, broken down as:

(a)     $1,950 for rent,

(b)    $406.55 for cell phone charges and contract cancellation, and

(c)    $310 for car insurance.

Counterclaim

47)     The respondent counterclaims for $648.11 in unpaid bills from December 2016-March 2017 and $650 in rent for April 2017.

48)     Dealing with the April 2017 rent claim first, the respondent says he had to pay the rent for April 2017 because when the applicant moved out on March 30, 2017, she had failed to give one month’s notice.  He also says that he stored some of the applicant’s belongings until late May.

49)     The applicant agrees that she did not give notice until March 29, 2017. In submission she says the respondent sexually assaulted her, and had an alcohol dependency, prompting her decision to move out.  The respondent denies these allegations.  

50)     For this reason, and because the sexual assault and alcohol dependency allegations are sensitive personal information I have anonymized these reasons to identify the parties by initials only. 

51)     I mention the sexual assault and alcohol dependence allegations only because the applicant argues this justified her giving short notice to move out.  The RTA does not apply to this roommate dispute.  However, given that I have no evidence about the parties’ contractual agreement about notice, I refer to section 45.1 of the RTA for guidance.  It specifies that, even where family violence is a concern, the required notice period is 30 days. 

52)     I find that the applicant failed to give 30 days’ notice and therefore owes the respondent her share of the April 2017 rent at $650.00.

53)     As far as the unpaid bills, the respondent says a November 16, 2017 email shows that the applicant admitted owing him money for internet, hydro and natural gas for the period of December 2016-March 2017.

54)     The November 16, 2017 email shows the applicant had agreed to share the costs of the utilities from December 2016-March 2017 on a 50/50 split, something she also conceded in her submissions.

55)     Looking at the bills for internet, gas and hydro from December 2016 to March 2017, I find that they support the respondent’s counterclaim that 50% of these expenses amounts to $648.11. I find that the applicant must refund the respondent this amount.

Summary - Counterclaim

56)     On the counterclaim, I found that the applicant owes the respondent $1,298.11, broken down as:

(a)    $650 for rent, and

(b)    $648.11 for utilities expenses.

57)     Subtracting the counterclaim award ($1,298.11) from the claim award ($2,666.55) gives a figure of $1,368.44, which I order the respondent to pay the applicant within 10 days of this decision.

Fees and Expenses

58)     Under section 49 of the Act, and tribunal rules, the tribunal will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for tribunal fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. The applicant has been largely successful. I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $125.00 in tribunal fees and $11.00 in dispute-related expenses for serving the Dispute Notice.

ORDERS

59)     Within 10 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $1,520.49, broken down as follows:

a)     $1,368.44 as reimbursement for the respondent’s share of the rent and other household expenses;

b)     $16.05 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c)      $125.00 for tribunal fees and $11.00 for dispute-related expenses.

60)     The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.  

61)     I further order that the public version of this decision anonymize all parties, to protect the privacy and identity of both the applicant and respondent in respect of the sensitive personal allegations between them.

62)     Under section 48 of the Act, the tribunal will not provide the parties with the Order giving final effect to this decision until the time for making a notice of objection under section 56.1(2) has expired and no notice of objection has been made.  The time for filing a notice of objection is 28 days after the party receives notice of the tribunal’s final decision.

63)     Under section 58.1 of the Act, a validated copy of the tribunal’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia.  A tribunal order can only be enforced if it is an approved consent resolution order, or, if no objection has been made and the time for filing a notice of objection has passed. Once filed, a tribunal order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.