Date Issued: February 4, 2025

File: SC-2023-004150

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bennell v. Oostenbroek, 2025 BCCRT 162

Between:

RICK BENNELL (also known as Rickie Minard Bennell)

Applicant

And:

MARCEL OOSTENBROEK

Respondent

– and –

File: SC-2023-004499

Between:

RICK BENNELL (also known as Rickie Minard Bennell)

                                                                                                                            Applicant

And:

CHARLES G. RASMUSSEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Megan Stewart

INTRODUCTION

1.      These are housing disputes. They involve the same applicant, but different respondents. The facts follow a similar pattern and the issue is the same, so I have written one decision for both disputes.

2.      Rick Bennell (also known as Rickie Minard Bennell) says Marcel Oostenbroek and Charles G. Rasmussen each separately evicted him without notice, and withheld his deposit.[1]

3.      In SC-2023-004150, Rick Bennell asks for $4,300, including $750 for one month’s rent, $750 for double his damage deposit, and $2,800 for allegedly stolen items. In SC-2023-004150, Rick Bennell asks for $1,800, broken down as $600 for failure to provide notice, $600 for double his security deposit, $50 for cleaning supplies, and $50 for two remote controls. I note this only adds up to $1,300.

4.      The respondents both deny Rick Bennell’s claims. They each say Rick Bennell breached the rental agreement and caused damage to their respective accommodations.

5.      Rick Bennell and Marcel Oostenbroek are each self-represented. Charles G. Rasmussen is represented by a friend, VC.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

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

7.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the hearing’s format, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find 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 an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

8.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in court.

9.      Under CRTA section 61, the CRT may make any order or give any direction in relation to a CRT proceeding it thinks necessary to achieve the CRT’s objects, in accordance with its mandate. In SC-2023-004150, the applicant recorded his name as “Rick Bennell”. In SC-2023-004499, he recorded it as “Rickie Minard Bennell”. Despite being asked in both disputes, the applicant did not confirm his full legal name. So, I have exercised my discretion under CRTA 61 to amend the applicant’s name in the style of cause above to “Rick Bennell (also known as Rickie Minard Bennell)”.

Residential Tenancy Act

10.   Generally, the CRT does not have jurisdiction over residential tenancy disputes, which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancy Branch under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). However, the RTA does not apply to roommate agreements, or agreements where the tenant shares a kitchen or a bathroom with the owner.

11.   It is unclear whether Marcel Oostenbroek owned the accommodation in which Rick Bennell was renting a room. In any case, from the evidence it appears Marcel Oostenbroek was living there as well, and that they shared a kitchen and a bathroom with Rick Bennell.

12.   The signed Residential Room Rental Agreement between Rick Bennell and Charles G. Rasmussen indicates they would be using the house as a “single-family residence”, and that Rick Bennell would rent a room as his “personal residence”. So, even if Charles G. Rasmussen owned the house, I find they and Rick Bennell shared kitchen facilities.

13.   In both cases, I find these are contractual disputes that fall within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages.

ISSUE

14.   The issue in both disputes is whether Rick Bennell is entitled to any of his claimed damages.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

15.   As the applicant in these civil proceedings, Rick Bennell must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence, but only refer to information necessary to explain my decision. Rick Bennell did not provide documentary evidence or initial submissions other than those in his Dispute Notices filed at the start of each proceeding, despite the chance to do so. He did provide final reply submissions.

SC-2023-004150

16.   There is no written agreement in evidence, and it is unclear when Rick Bennell began renting a room from Marcel Oostenbroek. However, it is undisputed that Rick Bennell’s monthly rent was $750, and that he paid a $375 damage deposit.

17.   There is no evidence Rick Bennell and Marcel Oostenbroek discussed notice to terminate their agreement. In certain circumstances, contractual terms may be implied. Implied terms are terms that the parties did not expressly consider, discuss, or write down. In previous CRT disputes, tribunal members have found there is an implied reasonable notice term of one month in rental agreements.[2] I agree with this period, and find such an implied term existed here. I also find there was an implied term Rick Bennell and Marcel Oostenbroek would maintain a reasonable level of cleanliness to permit the accommodation’s residents to live communally.[3]

18.   Marcel Oostenbroek says Rick Bennell breached their no-drinking policy, urinated on the bed and the carpeted floor, and smeared feces on walls, a banister, and a door. Rick Bennell does not dispute this, so I accept it happened. I find by behaving this way, Rick Bennell also breached the implied term to maintain a reasonable level of cleanliness, and Marcel Oostenbroek was entitled to end the agreement without notice. That is, I find these were fundamental breaches that went to the heart of the agreement. So, I dismiss Rick Bennell’s claim for $750 for one month’s rent in lieu of notice. Rick Bennell did not provide any other basis for this part of his claim, such as entitlement to a return of pre-paid rent.

19.   Next, the damage deposit. Rick Bennell does not explain why he claims $750, which is double the $375 deposit. I find there is nothing to suggest Marcel Oostenbroek agreed to pay him double the deposit’s amount, so I have only considered whether Rick Bennell is entitled to $375.

20.   A damage deposit is presumptively refundable in the absence of damage or other allowable deductions. This means Marcel Oostenbroek must prove the damage and related expenses to keep all or part of the deposit.[4]

21.   Marcel Oostenbroek provided photos of a stained foam mattress they say Rick Bennell damaged. Rick Bennell says the mattress had a plastic cover on it, and any damage to it happened before he occupied the room. Even if this is true, Rick Bennell does not deny smearing excrement around the accommodation. Although Marcel Oostenbroeck did not provide cleaning receipts or invoices, I find withholding the entire damage deposit to deal with this was reasonable, given the extent of the mess described and the inherent health risks associated with coming into contact with human feces. I dismiss Rick Bennell’s claim for reimbursement of his damage deposit.

22.   Finally, the allegedly stolen items. Rick Bennell says Marcel Oostenbroek stole two TVs, remotes, a microwave, clothes, work boots, jackets, a blow up bed, tools, a laptop, a DVD player, and new running shoes, worth a total of $2,800. Marcel Oostenbroek denies this. Rick Bennell’s evidence is nothing more than a bare assertion, which, in the face of Marcel Oostenbroek’s categorical denial, I find is not enough to prove his claim. Even if he had proven it, Rick Bennell provided no evidence of the value of the items he says were taken, so I would have found his claim unproven in any event. I also dismiss this part of Rick Bennell’s claim.

SC-2023-004499

23.   Charles G. Rasmussen and Rick Bennell entered into a written Residential Room Rental Agreement for the period June 1 to November 30, 2021. The monthly rent was $600, with a security deposit of $300. The agreement specifically required that communal areas, as well as the bedroom and bathroom, be kept tidy. Also, Rick Bennell was not to keep any dangerous articles or articles “that might unreasonably increase the danger of fire on or around the Room or House or that might be considered hazardous” in his room.

24.   Here, there is no need to imply a cleanliness term, as I find the agreement specifically contemplated one. The agreement also said Rick Bennell was to give 30 days’ written notice to terminate it, but was silent as to Charles G. Rasmussen’s obligations about notice. However, I find it is appropriate to imply a one-month notice term. This is because I find the principle of contra proferentem applies. This means that any doubt about the meaning of an ambiguous provision is to be resolved against the party who drafted it. I find the silence here is ambiguous about Charles G. Rasmussen’s obligations if they wanted to end the agreement early, so it must be interpreted in Rick Bennell’s favour. Ultimately, it does not matter, because I find Rick Bennell breached the agreement.

25.   Charles G. Rasmussen says Rick Bennell posed a health and safety risk because he left hot dogs to burn on the hot plate he kept in his room after he went out one evening. Rick Bennell denies this, and says after he left the house, he spoke to the other residents who were his friends. However, he did not provide statements from those people about what happened. On the other hand, Charles G. Rasmussen provided witness statements from two other residents, VC and GP, that support what they say happened. As noted above, VC is Charles G. Rasmussen’s friend, so I find their statement is likely not neutral and I give it no weight. However, based on GP’s statement, I prefer Charles G. Rasmussen’s account of the hot plate incident. I find Rick Bennell breached the agreement by keeping a hot plate in his room, and leaving it on unattended with food cooking.

26.   Charles G. Rasmussen also says Rick Bennell came into the house soaked in urine and feces, lost control of his bodily functions, and used the communal furniture and areas in this condition. Rick Bennell does not dispute this, so I accept it is true. I find this was a breach of the agreement’s cleanliness term.

27.   Again, I find these breaches were fundamental. So, I find Charles G. Rasmussen was not required to give Rick Bennell one month’s notice to leave. I dismiss Rick Bennell’s claim for $600 in lieu of notice. I note Rick Bennell says Charles G. Rasmussen did not offer him “pro rated rent”, but there is no evidence he was entitled to a refund of any rent money.

28.   As for the damage deposit, again there is no basis for Rick Bennell to claim double the amount, as that is not mentioned in the agreement. Charles G. Rasmussen did not provide photos of the damage they say Rick Bennell caused after he lost control of his bowels and used the communal furniture and areas. However, they did provide witness statements from GP and another resident, RE, confirming this. Also, the agreement indicated the room Rick Bennell rented was in good order and safe before his occupancy. It is undisputed that the room included a bed for Rick Bennell’s use. In their witness statement, RE said they saw feces “mashed” into the uncovered mattress after Rick Bennell had left. Rick Bennell does not deny this. In these circumstances, I find it was reasonable for Charles G. Rasmussen to keep Rick Bennell’s $300 security deposit to clean the communal areas and replace the mattress, for the same reasons as above. I dismiss this part of Rick Bennell’s claim.

29.   Last, I find there is no evidence Charles G. Rasmussen failed to return two remotes, which they dispute. I also find there is no basis to award Rick Bennell $50 for cleaning products. I dismiss Rick Bennell’s claim for reimbursement of the cost of two remotes and cleaning products.

30.   Under CRTA section 49 and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. None of the parties paid any fees, so I make no order. Charles G. Rasmussen claims $1,000 in dispute-related expenses for time spent on this dispute. They also suggest this claim is to deter Rick Bennell’s “homophobic, fraudulent, and abusive behavior”. Rule 9.5(5) says the CRT will not award compensation for time spent dealing with the process except in extraordinary circumstances. I find there are no extraordinary circumstances here. There is also no documentary evidence to support the allegation that Rick Bennell was abusive. So, I make no award.

ORDER

31.   I dismiss Rick Bennell’s claims, Charles G. Rasmussen’s claim for dispute-related expenses, and this dispute.