A BC roommate situation ended in a legal dispute after one tenant faced an untimely eviction.
NB and GV were former roommates, and GV rented a room to NB as a sublet. When NB moved out, GV held her security deposit, which NB said GV had no basis for doing.
The security deposit was valued at $300, so she asked the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal to order GV to pay her back. GV said that NB left her room and other areas dirty, adding that she “failed to fulfill some other terms of their agreement.”
GV asked the tribunal to dismiss NB’s claims and counterclaimed, telling the tribunal she owed him $445 for other costs. One of those alleged costs was $10 for toilet paper.
Here’s what the tribunal said.
Both parties signed a residential room agreement on January 10, 2022. The agreement included some terms about sharing in the cleaning of common areas and keeping the room that was being rented clean. NB was also required to pay a share of the internet and hydro. NB paid a $300 deposit on the day they signed the agreement.
Over one year later, on April 18, 2023, GV told NB that he was giving her and another roommate notice to move out because he wanted to find new roommates. He wanted new people in the rental for June 1. NB asked to stay until the end of June, and GV agreed. According to the tribunal decision, GV did not give a reason for asking the tenants to move out other than “needing a change. ”
NB texted GV on April 30, saying that she had found a new place for June 15 and asked if she could stay until then. GV agreed. NB also asked about the security deposit, but GV said he would let her know after she moved out so he could “review” her room.
According to NB, on May 31, GV suddenly demanded she leave by the end of the day.
“The parties both say the other yelled at them, but I find it unnecessary to decide exactly what happened. It is enough to say things became heated,” the tribunal said.
NB left until she could return with a friend’s car to move her things, and she moved out in the early evening. On June 2, NB emailed about the security deposit. On June 6, GV responded, accusing NB of taking some dishes and leaving the common areas dirty. NB returned the dishes, claiming she had taken them by mistake.
GV told the tribunal that NB abandoned the room, but all the evidence, including text messages and GV’s own submissions, confirmed that he had told her to leave.
“He says his decision was the result of ongoing behaviour issues, such as failing to clean or buy cleaning supplies, leaving the bathroom fan on too long, and using a sink after he had painted a countertop,” the tribunal added.
The tribunal decision points to the “final straw” in this BC roommate dispute from May 31, when GV said NB unplugged his coffee machine.
“Even if true, between roommates, these are relatively minor issues that do not justify immediate eviction. This is especially so when there were only 15 days left in the tenancy anyway,” the tribunal said this amounted to a breach of the agreement.
GV provided closeup photos of dirty windows, dust, and dirt, but none of the evidence proved that NB left the entire room in an unclean state. NB also offered statements from friends who helped her move, who said the room was clean. NB did admit that in her rush to leave, she left one meal’s worth of dirty dishes and up to five items in the fridge.
GV’s claims included $180 to clean NB’s room, $50 to empty a garbage can, $50 to clean the fridge, $25 to wash dishes, and $50 to wash her linens. He also claimed $10 for toilet paper.
Responding to the toilet paper claim, the tribunal said, “The roommate agreement does not include a term about shared expenses like toilet paper. In any event, there is no evidence to support this claim, such as a receipt or correspondence between the parties at the time or after [NB] moved out. I find it unproven as well.”
The tribunal settled the BC roommate dispute by ordering GV to pay NB $444.67, which included $300 in debt and the rest in tribunal fees.