Date Issued: June 18, 2025

File: SC-2024-000153

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Soler v. Ajith, 2025 BCCRT 827

Between:

DIEGO SOLER, SAMUEL TORO and JUAN DIEGO SANCHEZ

Applicants

And:

AKSHATH AJITH and CHAKSHU VERMA

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Maria Montgomery

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicants, Diego Soler, Samuel Toro and Juan Diego Sanchez, rented rooms in a house from the respondents, Akshath Ajith and Chakshu Verma. The applicants say the respondents failed to return their deposits and ended their roommate agreement without giving sufficient notice. The applicants claim $1,900 for their security deposits and $500 as compensation for psychological and physical harm.

2.      The respondents agree that the applicants paid a total of $1,900 in security deposits. The respondents say they are entitled to keep the deposits because the applicants caused damage, owed for utilities, removed some items and failed to clean.

3.      The parties are each self-represented in this dispute.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      The Civil Resolution Tribunal (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. These are the CRT’s formal written reasons.

5.      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 that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. I find that an oral hearing is not necessary.

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 court.

7.      Generally, the CRT does not have jurisdiction over residential tenancy disputes, which 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 not involving the landlord, like this one. So, I find the RTA does not apply and this is a contractual dispute within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages.

8.      I was unable to open 5 pieces of the respondents’ evidence. At CRT staff’s request, the respondents resubmitted the evidence, which I was able to open. The applicants had an opportunity to review the resubmitted evidence but provided no submissions.

Style of Cause

9.      In the Dispute Notice, the applicants named the first respondent as Akshat Kuar. The Dispute Response shows that the respondent’s name is Akshath Ajith. So, I have exercised my discretion under CRTA section 61 to amend the style of cause to reflect this respondent’s correct name.

ISSUE

10.   Must the respondents pay anything to the applicants for their security deposits or for physical and psychological harm?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In this civil dispute, the applicants must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities. This means more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions but refer only to what is necessary to explain my decision. The applicants did not provide any submissions or evidence in this dispute, despite numerous requests from CRT staff.

12.   The following is undisputed. On September 15, 2023, the parties moved into a house together, with the exception of Mr. Sanchez, who moved in a few weeks later. The respondents signed a lease with the landlord and made the following arrangements with the applicants:

a.    Mr. Soler rented a room for $1,300 per month and paid a deposit of $750.

b.    Mr. Toro rented a room for $1,300 and paid a deposit of $650.

c.    Mr. Sanchez rented a room for $1,000 and paid a deposit of $500.

13.   The respondents say the applicants refused to sign a written agreement. The applicants did not suggest otherwise, so I find that the applicants each had a verbal agreement with the respondents. The parties did not say what they agreed to regarding a notice period. In the absence of a written contractual term, I find it was an implied term of each agreement that either party had to give the other reasonable notice to end the living arrangement.

14.   For reasons that are greatly disputed, the parties ended the living arrangement a short time later. The respondents say they gave the applicants one-month notice to move out on October 1 and a written reminder a few weeks later. The applicants say that they received notice to move out on October 17, 2023, and did so on October 31, 2023.

Damages for physical and psychological harm

15.   The applicants say that because the respondents ended the roommate agreement early, they were forced to camp out on a friend’s property. They say they suffered economic hardship without the return of their deposits.

16.   The respondents say that the applicants caused them significant distress by having parties until 4am which drew noise complaints from neighbors and the landlord as well as police visits.

17.   In other CRT decisions, tribunal members have found that rental agreements include an implied quiet enjoyment term.[1] Though previous CRT decisions do not bind me, I agree that such terms may be implied in roommate agreements. Here, I find they were implied in the rental agreements each applicant had with the respondents.

18.   The applicants have the burden of proving that the respondents caused them psychological and physical harm by ending the agreement early. As noted above, the applicants did not provide any submissions or evidence in this dispute. From the evidence and submissions before me, I find the applicants breached the parties’ agreements by interfering with the respondents’ quiet enjoyment by having late night parties.

19.   I find the applicants’ breach entitled the respondents to end the arrangement without providing 30 days’ written notice. So, I dismiss the applicants’ claims for damages for physical and psychological harm.

Security Deposit Deductions

20. A security deposit is commonly understood to cover damage beyond normal wear and tear, unpaid rent, or other financial obligations under an agreement.[2]

21. The applicants bear the burden of proving their claim. However, a security deposit is presumptively refundable. It is undisputed that the applicants paid $1,900 in deposits to the respondents. So, to retain a security deposit or any portion of it, the respondents must prove their entitlement. This includes proving the terms of the contract, a breach, and damages.[3]

22.   The respondents raised a number of reasons for keeping the applicants’ security deposits. They say they deducted an amount for utilities, cleaning, and damage from each of the deposits. I will address the utilities and common area deductions made to all deposits before addressing further deductions to each deposit separately.

Utilities

23.   The respondents provided utility bills for internet, electricity and gas. They did not provide a calculation for each roommate’s share of the bills. Calculating these amounts based on the utility bills before me for the period September 15, 2023, to October 31, 2023, I find that each applicant owes the respondents $150.74, with the exception of Mr. Sanchez. As Mr. Sanchez did not move in until October 1, 2023, he owes $100.14 for utilities. I find the respondents are entitled to keep these amounts from the security deposits.

 

Common Areas

24.   The respondents provided photographs of the kitchen, living area, backyard and garage. The photos show dirty surfaces and significant debris including boxes, bags and garbage. I find that due to the state the applicants left the common areas, which is not disputed, the respondents are entitled to an amount for cleaning. The respondents did not say how long they spent cleaning or provide any receipts from cleaners. From my review of the photographs, I find the respondents are entitled to retain $100 from each of the security deposits for cleaning the common areas.

25.   The respondents provided photos of what they say are burn marks on the flooring. Photographs in evidence show two strips of laminate flooring with dark discoloured marks. The applicants do not dispute that they are responsible for this damage. The respondents did not provide receipts or quotes for repairing the damaged laminate. I find the respondents are entitled to retain $50 from each of the deposits for floor damage.

Mr. Soler’s Deposit

26.   The respondents say that Mr. Soler damaged electric outlets and clogged a toilet. However, I find the respondents provided no photographs of these damages, so I find them unproven. The respondents provided photographs of a closet door with a hole and a broken doorknob. They say these photos are from Mr. Soler’s room. Mr. Soler said he did not cause this damage but does not explain further. He does not dispute that the damage was in his room. I find it more likely than not that Mr. Soler is responsible for the damage. I find the respondents are entitled to retain $100 from the deposit to repair the closet door and doorknob. Allowing for the deductions made above as well, this comes to $400.74 in deductions from Mr. Soler’s $750 deposit. So, I order the respondents to return $349.26 to Mr. Soler.

Mr. Toro’s Deposit

27.   The respondents say that Mr. Toro broke a mini fridge because he tried to clean it by putting it in a shower. However, their photo of the mini fridge only confirms that it is still dirty. The respondents did not provide a video or other evidence to show that the mini fridge is no longer operable. The respondents also say that they deducted an amount from Mr. Toro’s deposit for a torn mattress and a broken bathroom doorknob. However, the respondents did not provide any photographs of this damage, so I find it unproven. As noted above, I have already found the respondents are entitled to $100 from Mr. Toro for cleaning.

28.   The respondents say that they already returned $100 to Mr. Toro. They say they sent it to his friend, as Mr. Toro did not have a Canadian bank account. Though the respondents did not provide any documentary evidence to confirm this e-transfer, Mr. Toro does not dispute that he received it. Allowing for the $100 Mr. Toro has already received and the deductions discussed above for utilities, damaged flooring and cleaning, I find Mr. Toro is entitled to the return of $249.26 of his security deposit.

Mr. Sanchez’s Deposit

29.   The respondents say that they retained some of Mr. Sanchez’s deposit because of missing items including cutlery, hangers and candleholders. However, the respondents did not provide further details as to the number or value of these items. Nor did they provide receipts for replacing them. So, I find this damage unproven.

30.   The respondents say they deducted an amount for unpaid rent because Mr. Sanchez had a friend staying in his room for several weeks. However, there is no indication that the parties had an agreement with Mr. Sanchez or his guest for additional rent. So, I find the respondents are not entitled to deduct anything for it.

31.   Allowing for deductions discussed above for utilities, damaged flooring and cleaning, I find Mr. Sanchez is entitled to the return of $249.86 of his security deposit.

 

INTEREST, FEES, AND EXPENSES

32.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. The applicants are entitled to pre-judgment interest on the returned deposit amounts calculated from the end of the month that the deposits were due, which is November 30, 2023, to the date of this decision. This equals:

a.    $24.87 for Mr. Soler

b.    $17.75 for Mr. Toro, and

c.    $17.79 for Mr. Sanchez.

33.   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. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. As the applicants were partly successful, I find Mr. Soler is entitled to reimbursement of half his paid CRT fees, which is $62.50. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

34.   Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondents to pay the applicants as follows:

a.    $436.63 to Mr. Soler, which includes $349.26 in returned damage deposit, $24.87 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, $62.50 in paid CRT fees,

b.    $267.01 to Mr. Toro, which includes $249.26 in returned damage deposit and $17.75 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $267.65 to Mr. Sanchez, which includes $249.86 in returned damage deposit and $17.79 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act.

35.   The applicants are entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

36.   I dismiss the applicants’ remaining claims.

37.   This is a validated decision and order. 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.