Date Issued: July 8, 2025

File: SC-2024-004083

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Boustanie v. Arroyo, 2025 BCCRT 917

Between:

MIGUEL BOUSTANIE

APPLICANT

And:

RAFAEL ARROYO

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a roommate dispute.

2.      The applicant, Miguel Boustanie, rented a room in an apartment that the respondent, Rafael Arroyo, lived in. The applicant says that the respondent evicted him one day after he moved in. He says the respondent agreed to refund him $1,100 for the month’s rent, plus his $600 security deposit. In total, he claims $1,700.

3.      The respondent denies evicting the applicant and says he voluntarily moved out.

4.      The parties are both self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.    The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). 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.

6.    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. 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.

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 court.

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.    Residential tenancy disputes are generally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) under the Residential Tenancy Act. However, the RTB declines jurisdiction over roommate disputes, like this one. So, I find that this dispute falls within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages.

10. Some of the evidence in this dispute was submitted in Spanish, with no translation provided. CRT rule 1.7(5) says all information and evidence must be in English or translated to English. In making my decision I have not relied on any evidence that was not in English and did not have an accompanying English translation.

ISSUE

11. The issue in this dispute is whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of $1,100 for rent and $600 for his security deposit.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12. In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove his 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 relevant to provide context for my decision.

13. It is undisputed that the applicant paid $1,700 to the respondent to rent a room in his apartment for the month of April 2024. This included $1,100 for rent, plus a $600 security deposit. The parties proceeded informally without a written agreement. The parties disagree about when the applicant moved in, however, I find nothing turns on this. The parties’ relationship deteriorated, and the applicant left the apartment in early April 2024.

14. The applicant says the respondent verbally agreed to fully refund his rent and security deposit once he had removed his belongings from the apartment.

15. For a binding settlement agreement to exist, there must be an offer and acceptance of that offer, without qualification. The agreement does not have to be signed, or even written, to be enforceable. Whether the parties had a consensus, or a “meeting of the minds”, on the contract’s essential terms is determined from the perspective of an objective reasonable bystander and not the parties’ subjective intentions. The party alleging a settlement agreement, which here is the applicant, has the burden of proving it (see: Salminen v. Garvie, 2011 BCSC 339, at paragraphs 24 to 27).

16. The applicant relies on a witness statement from his friend, GTD. In the witness statement, GTD says that while helping remove the applicant’s belongings from the apartment on April 9, 2024, they witnessed the parties come to an agreement. GTD says the parties agreed that once the applicant’s belongings were removed from the apartment, the respondent would return the rent and security deposit to the applicant. GTD also says they observed the parties visit different bank locations together to retrieve the funds that same day, but the respondent was unable to withdraw the funds. The respondent does not deny that GTD was present on April 9, 2024, or the information in their witness statement.

17. In his Dispute Response, the respondent says he first offered to refund the applicant’s security deposit and to pay for a hotel room that the applicant could stay in for the remainder of the month. He says the applicant refused this offer and eventually requested a refund of the “full amount”. The respondent says he asked the applicant to instead return to the apartment, but after the applicant refused, he went to an ATM to get the funds. He says he was waiting for a transfer from his parents so that he could give the applicant the money, but the applicant left while he was waiting at the ATM. The respondent now refuses to refund the applicant.

18. Based on the above, I find it more likely than not that the respondent agreed to fully refund the rent and security deposit. The respondent acknowledged that the applicant asked for a refund of the “full amount”. By going to the ATM to retrieve funds, the respondent’s actions showed an intention to be bound to a verbal agreement. GTD’s witness statement supports the applicant’s claim about the terms of the settlement agreement. Specifically, the rent and security deposit would be refunded once the applicant removed his belongings from the apartment. Notably, the respondent did not dispute this.

19. The applicant provided evidence showing that he removed his belongings from the apartment in the evening of April 9, 2024. So, I find the applicant is entitled to the agreed refund of $1,100 in rent and $600 for the security deposit. In total, I find the applicant is entitled to $1,700.

20. The respondent says that the applicant had committed to stay for 6 months but left within the first month. The respondent says the applicant should pay him a total of $6,100 for lost rent. The respondent did not file a counterclaim. The applicant denies that he had committed to a multi-month agreement, and the respondent did not provide any evidence in support of this allegation. So, I find it unproven that the respondent is entitled to a set off against the amount he owes the applicant.

21. The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $1,700 from April 9, 2024, the date the applicant removed his belongings from the apartment, to the date of this decision. This equals $92.71.

22. 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, so I find he is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in paid CRT fees. Neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

23. Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $1,917.71, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,700 in debt,

b.    $92.71 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

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

25. 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.