Date Issued: September 29, 2023

File: SC-2023-000075

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Morshedizadeh v. Lim, 2023 BCCRT 835

Between:

TARA MORSHEDIZADEH

Applicant

And:

CHAESUN LIM

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Megan Stewart

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a roommate dispute. The applicant, Tara Morshedizadeh, says the respondent, Chaesun Lim, told her the room she agreed to rent came with a private bathroom. The applicant says when she moved in, the respondent’s partner told her the person living in a trailer on the property would be sharing the applicant’s shower. So, the applicant says the respondent misrepresented the rental. She claims $1,000 as reimbursement for paid rent and $500 for the return of the damage deposit, for a total of $1,500.

2.      The respondent says the bathroom was private, and that they confirmed this with the applicant on the move-in date. They say the applicant decided to move out right away, despite the respondent providing assurances that no one else would use the bathroom. The respondent says they were unable to find a new roommate immediately, so the applicant is not entitled to the claimed amount. I note the respondent does not specifically say why they are entitled to keep the $500 damage deposit.

3.      The parties are each self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s (CRT) formal written reasons. The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA 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.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, 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.      Section 42 of the CRTA 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. After the time for submitting evidence had expired, the applicant asked to be allowed to submit additional evidence. Through CRT staff, I allowed the applicant’s request, and set a deadline for submission which was extended once. However, the applicant did not submit any additional evidence, so I have only considered the evidence before me.

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.

Preliminary issue

8.      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 over debt and damages.

ISSUES

9.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Is the applicant entitled to reimbursement of $1,000 for paid rent?

b.    Is the applicant entitled to $500 for the return of the damage deposit?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find necessary to explain my decision. The respondent did not make written submissions other than those in the Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding nor did they submit documentary evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so.

11.   In December 2022, the applicant agreed to rent a room from the respondent. The advertisement for the room is not in evidence, and it does not appear the parties had a written agreement. However, the respondent does not dispute that they advertised the room as coming with a private bathroom, and I accept that they did. The evidence shows the applicant paid a $500 damage deposit on December 27, 2022, the same day she attended a viewing, and $1,000 for rent on January 1, 2023.

12.   It is undisputed that when the applicant moved in on January 1, the parties confirmed that the bathroom was private. I find the private bathroom was an essential term of the parties’ agreement. However, as noted above, the applicant says the respondent’s partner later told her the person living in a trailer on the property would be sharing the applicant’s shower. The applicant says this shows the respondent misrepresented the room when they advertised it as coming with a private bathroom.

13.   A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made during negotiations or in an advertisement that induces a reasonable person to enter into a contract. The seller must have acted negligently or fraudulently in making the misrepresentation, the buyer must have reasonably relied on the misrepresentation to enter into the contract, and the reliance “must have been detrimental [...] in the sense that damages resulted” (see Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 SCR 87 at paragraph 110).

14.   Here, the respondent undisputedly advertised the room as coming with a private bathroom and told the applicant the same thing. The respondent does not disagree that their partner told the applicant a third party would be using the shower, after the applicant moved in. The evidence indicates the respondent and their partner had a misunderstanding about whether the bathroom would be private, which led to the respondent’s partner telling the applicant she would be sharing it with a third party. I find the misunderstanding means the respondent likely did not negligently or fraudulently misrepresent the rental to the applicant.

15.   However, I find the respondent’s partner was acting as the respondent’s agent when they told the applicant a third party would be sharing her shower, after the applicant moved in. Further, I find the applicant reasonably relied on the respondent’s partner’s information that the bathroom would be shared, and ended the roommate arrangement by moving out. I say this because the misunderstanding between the respondent and their partner did not become clear until after the applicant had moved out. In these circumstances, I find the respondent fundamentally breached the agreement when their partner, acting as their agent, told the applicant she would be sharing the bathroom with a third party, after the applicant and the respondent had agreed the bathroom would be private.

16.   I find that because of this fundamental breach, the applicant was entitled to move out immediately and seek damages. I find that as the applicant undisputedly only occupied the room for a few hours prior to the breach, she is entitled to reimbursement of the claimed $1,000 for paid rent.

17.   Next, I turn to the $500 damage deposit. To keep a damage deposit, a landlord must prove the damage to their property on a balance of probabilities (see Griffin Holding Corporation v. Raydon Rentals Ltd., 2016 BCSC 2013 at paragraph 28, and Buckerfields v. Abbotsford Tractor and Equipment, 2017 BCPC 185 at paragraph 5). The respondent does not say why they are entitled to keep the damage deposit, and specifically, they do not say the applicant caused any damage to the room, so I find they are not entitled to keep the damage deposit. I allow the applicant’s claim for a $500 refund of the damage deposit.

18.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $1,500 award from January 1, 2023, the date of the breach, to the date of this decision. This equals $70.53.

19.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. The applicant was successful but did not pay CRT fees, and did not claim dispute-related expenses, so I award none.

ORDERS

20.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $1,570.53, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,500 in debt for the damage deposit and rent refund, and

b.    $70.53 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA.

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

22.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.