Date Issued: May 19, 2022

File: SC-2021-007955

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Lacroix-Dietrich v. Agbetuyi, 2022 BCCRT 590

Between:

AMBRE LACROIX-DIETRICH

 

Applicant

And:

OLUWASEUN AGBETUYI

 

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a roommate dispute. The applicant, Ambre Lacroix-Dietrich, was the head tenant in a rented house. Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich rented a room in the house to the respondent, Oluwaseun Agbetuyi. Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich says Ms. Agbetuyi failed to pay October 2021 rent and moved out early on October 1, 2021 without sufficient notice. Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich claims $5,000 in damages.

2.      Ms. Agbetuyi admits she moved out early without notice. However, she says the parties agreed Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich would keep her $450 security deposit and that Ms. Agbetuyi would pay an additional $450, to make up the required October rent of $900. Ms. Agbetuyi says she also later offered to find a suitable replacement tenant, but Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich declined and argued Ms. Agbetuyi owed $900, not $450, in addition to the $450 security deposit.

3.      The parties are each self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). CRTA section 2 states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In some respects, both parties of this dispute call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

6.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT 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 CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

8.      The parties’ rental agreement on its face describes Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich as the “landlord” and Ms. Agbetuyi as the “tenant”. It says nothing about Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich living in the house and sharing common spaces like the kitchen and bathroom. However, in this dispute the parties agree, and the evidence shows, that they shared those common spaces in the home. For the time period at issue, I find the parties lived as roommates.

9.      In general, residential tenancy disputes are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). However, the RTB declines jurisdiction over roommate disputes like this one. So, I find the RTA does not apply and this is a contractual roommate dispute within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.

ISSUE

10.   The issue in this dispute is to what extent, if any, Ms. Agbetuyi owes Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich $5,000 in damages for ending her tenancy agreement early.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich must prove her claim on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision. I note Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich chose not to provide any final reply submission, despite having the opportunity to do so.

12.   As discussed further below, the parties’ August 4, 2021 rental agreement said the lease would begin on September 1, 2021 and end on April 30, 2021. Rent was set at $900 per month with a $450 security deposit. Ms. Agbetuyi says she moved into the room on September 4, 2021 though nothing turns on the precise date.

13.   In a jointly submitted Statement of Facts, the parties agree:

a.    Ms. Agbetuyi rented 1 bedroom of a rental suite in a house from the applicant head tenant, Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich.

b.    The parties had a written tenancy agreement.

c.    Ms. Agbetuyi paid Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich $450 as a security deposit and $900 for rent.

d.    On September 30, 2021, Ms. Agbetuyi told Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich that she would be moving out on October 1, 2021.

e.    Ms. Agbetuyi moved out on October 1, 2021.

f.     Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich has not returned the $450 security deposit to Ms. Agbetuyi.

14.   Ms. Agbetuyi says that on September 30, 2021 the parties verbally agreed over the phone that Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich would keep her $450 security deposit and that Ms. Agbetuyi would pay an additional $450, to account for the October rent. Ms. Agbetuyi says Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich was satisfied with that settlement agreement. Ms. Agbetuyi also says she was not happy with the living conditions and adds that Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich misled her in the signed agreement because Ms. Agbetuyi did not realize until later that she was in fact a co-tenant. I find nothing turns on the alleged misrepresentation or living conditions, given my conclusion below about the parties’ agreement.

15.   Ms. Agbetuyi says that on October 3, 2021, after she had moved out on October 1, Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich suddenly told her she would have to pay $900, not $450. I find this is consistent with Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich’s October 3, 2021 email to Ms. Agbetuyi that attached certain RTB documents (although those RTB documents are not in evidence). As noted above, the RTA does not apply to the parties’ roommate agreement.

16.   In her October 3 email, Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich wrote, “Technically, without the agreement being signed before the 30 days, you may be held liable for the month of November’s rent as well. I expect the payment of $900, as previously discussed, by the 15^th of October. It is then that I will sign the mutual agreement to end a tenancy. Until the document has been signed by both parties, the lease is still legally binding.”

17.   In context, I find the most likely explanation of Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich’s email is that she had on September 30 agreed to end the tenancy agreement with her keeping the $450 deposit and Ms. Agbetuyi paying a further $450. But, Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich then looked into the RTA provisions, and believing they applied, decided she could demand more money from Ms. Agbetuyi.

18.   My interpretation is essentially consistent with Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich’s submission in this dispute. She says Ms. Agbetuyi offered on October 1 that she would pay $450 by October 15 and that in addition Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich could keep the $450 security deposit, to cover October rent. Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich submits she told Ms. Agbetuyi that once she received payment she would sign the “mutual agreement to end the lease” as a favour to Ms. Agbetuyi even though she was breaking the lease. I find that “mutual agreement to end the lease” is “the agreement” Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich referred to in her October 3 email, which I infer is an RTB form.

19.   Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich says she never received any payment on October 15. I find the parties’ text messages on October 3, 2021 show that it was Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich who at that point first demanded payment of $900 by October 15 and a signed “mutual to end tenancy” agreement, again referring to an RTB form. However, as noted above I find the weight of the evidence shows Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich had already agreed before October 3 to have the October rent covered by keeping the $450 security deposit (there is no suggestion there was any room damage) and additionally accept a further $450 payment, which I acknowledge Ms. Agbetuyi has not yet paid.

20.   While Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich argues Ms. Agbetuyi promised to pay the $450 by October 15, I find no evidence that she agreed to that timeline. Ms. Agbetuyi says she tried to pay the $450 and offered to find a replacement tenant, but Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich declined and instead filed this CRT dispute on October 18, 2021. I accept this evidence as Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich did not dispute it.

21.   On the evidence before me, I find Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich is entitled to only the $450 I find the parties agreed to on September 30, 2021, which is in addition to Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich retaining the $450 security deposit. I find no basis for any damages, given the parties’ agreement. Even if I had found Ms. Agbetuyi had breached the parties agreement, I would find the $5,000 damages claim unproven.

22.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $450 under the COIA. Calculated from October 15, 2021 to the date of this decision, this equals $1.20.

23.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. While Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich was partially successful, I dismiss her claim for reimbursement of $175 in CRT fees. I say this because the $450 awarded is what she could have received from Ms. Agbetuyi without starting this dispute. No dispute-related expenses were claimed.

ORDERS

24.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order Ms. Agbetuyi to pay Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich a total of $451.20, broken down as follows:

a.    $450 in debt, and

b.    $1.20 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA.

25.   Ms. Lacroix-Dietrich is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

26.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, the CRT 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 CRT’s final decision.

27.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of BC. A CRT 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 CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of BC.