Date Issued: June 29, 2022

File: SC-2021-005447

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: K.C. v. A.D., 2022 BCCRT 756

Between:

K.C. as Litigation Guardian of I.P.

 

Applicant

And:

A.D.

 

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Shelley Lopez, Acting Chair and Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a roommate dispute. The applicant is (KC) as Litigation Guardian of (IP). The respondent is (AD). IP says she paid AD a $400 damage deposit for rental of a room in AD’s apartment. IP moved out in June 2021 and at the time AD agreed in writing to refund the $400 but never paid. KC claims the $400. KC also claims $186.67 for 7 days’ of prepaid rent because she says AD restricted IP’s access to the rental unit between June 23 and 30, 2021. IP moved out on June 27, 2021.

2.      AD says IP was violent and was reasonably evicted. AD says that after one violent outburst on June 23, 2021, AD had to change the locks for her own safety. AD also says further cleaning was required, and so she says she owes nothing.

3.      In the published version of this decision, I have anonymized the parties’ names to protect the identity of the minor IP.

4.      KC represents herself and IP. AD is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      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.

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.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are whether KC is entitled to the return of IP’s $400 damage deposit and $186.67 for 7 days’ of rent.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the submitted evidence and arguments but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

12.   There is no written tenancy agreement in evidence. It is undisputed that by January 6, 2021 KC had paid AD $400 for IP’s damage deposit, which is confirmed by payment records in evidence. IP undisputedly moved out of AD’s home on June 27, 2021. KC submitted a handwritten 1-page note that both IP and AD signed, which said “damage deposit pending payable by Jul 1^st”. The note also appears to indicate there were “no damages to property”. I find AD agreed to refund IP (or KC on IP’s behalf) her $400 damage deposit and undisputedly has failed to do so.

13.   AD submits that IP’s behaviour was violent and disruptive, entitling her to retain the $400 damage deposit and change the locks. KC admits that IP’s behaviour was inappropriate but argues there was no property damage. The onus is on AD to prove there was damage or a failure to clean the rental unit, and I find she has not done so. KC submitted witness statements from IP’s friends who say they helped her clean the room. I accept this undisputed evidence. While AD said in her Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding that she had to do additional cleaning, she submitted no evidence in support of this, such as photos. Further, while KC admits IP’s behaviour was inappropriate, I find that does not entitled AD to retain a deposit paid to secure against property damage or failure to clean.

14.   I find the $400 was paid as a damage deposit and so AD could only retain some or all of the $400 for proven damage or failure to clean. I find AD has not proven any damage or failure to clean (which is consistent with the signed note above stating there was no damage). So, I find KC is entitled to reimbursement of the $400.

15.   AD did not file a counterclaim but I infer she argues her expense for changing the locks should be set off against the $400. I decline to do so, since AD submitted no evidence of her expense, such as a receipt for new locks.

16.   I turn to the $186.67. I dismiss this claim. I say this because KC does not argue AD was not entitled to evict IP and as noted admits IP’s behaviour was inappropriate. Given the admitted behaviour (which undisputedly included physical threats) I find AD reasonably changed the locks on either June 23 or 24. IP moved out on June 27 with police present. So, I find IP is not entitled to a refund for any unused rent.

17.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find KC is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the COIA on the $400. Calculated from July 1, 2021 to the date of this decision, this interest equals $1.79

18.   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. As the applicant was largely successful, I find she is entitled to reimbursement of $12.57 for reasonable dispute-related expenses. The applicant did not pay CRT fees so I make no order for fees.

ORDERS

19.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order AD to pay KC a total of $414.36, broken down as follows:

a.    $400 in debt,

b.    $1.79 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $12.57 in dispute-related expenses.

20.   KC is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable. I dismiss KC’s remaining claims.

21.   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.

22.   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.