A B.C. woman was within her rights to withhold part of her former roommate’s security deposit over “stolen candy,” according to the province’s small claims tribunal. The Civil Resolution Tribunal heard the woman deducted $6.50 for sweets eaten without permission—along with approximately $119 for other expenses—while returning the man’s deposit last summer. While he did not deny eating “a few chocolates,” according to tribunal member Kristen Gardner’s decision, he suggested charging him for them was laughable. “He argues that deducting anything for such a trivial item is petty,” Gardner wrote. “That might be true, but it does not mean it is improper.” Residential Tenancy Act does not apply The tribunal heard the woman rented out a partitioned space in a basement living room to the man for $650 a month beginning in June 2024, and collected a $325 deposit. The decision does not specify if she owned the home or was subletting part of the space as a tenant. Whatever their circumstances, she asked the man to leave within two months—and once he did, she returned approximately $200 of his deposit. Other deductions included a $95 cleaning fee, $18 for shared expenses, and $5 for a magic eraser. Her former roommate disputed all the charges, arguing the woman wasn’t allowed to withhold any of his deposit without his written consent under the Residential Tenancy Act. While that rule applies to many tenancies, it does not apply to “roommate tenancies” like theirs involving a shared living space, Gardner wrote. “There is no indication the parties expressly agreed to these conditions,” she added. “I find they do not apply here.” All deductions justified, tribunal finds The tribunal member also deemed each individual deduction justified, based in part on 13 pictures and two videos the woman submitted as evidence showing the condition of the property after her former roommate left. “They show the carpet in his space was left unvacuumed and littered with debris such as candy wrappers, a safety pin, crumbs, and other garbage,” Gardner wrote. “They also show hairs on the shower curtain and garbage left under the sink and on top of the fridge. There were also various scuff marks on the walls.” While there was no damage beyond reasonable wear and tear, the tribunal found the former roommate was responsible for leaving both his personal space and their common areas reasonably clean, and that he failed to do so. Even if they did not expressly agree to those terms in their agreement, they are implied, Gardner wrote. The woman told the tribunal it took her 2.5 hours to clean up, and Gardner found “nothing unreasonable” about charging $95 for that effort.
