B.C. property buyers must be reimbursed for cost of cleaning up after ‘hoarder’: tribunal

This image shows a dumpster filled with household debris. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. couple that sold a home must reimburse the buyers for the cost of cleaning up the mess left behind by a “hoarder” tenant, the Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled.

A decision in the case was recently published online and describes what photos submitted as evidence showed the buyers encountered when they took possession of the property.

“I find from them that the previous tenant was, from a layperson’s perspective, a hoarder. I intend no disrespect using that term,” wrote tribunal member David Jiang.

“They left behind an enormous number of personal items both inside and outside the house. Many of these were bulky. These included a boat, a trailer, spare tires, propane tanks, furniture, garbage bags presumably filled with garbage, food in the fridge and freezer, an assembled Christmas tree, shoes and clothes, an elliptical trainer, construction materials, and more items too numerous to list.”

Sharene Orstad, Lori Orstad, and Liane O’Grady bought the property in 2022 with plans to demolish the home and redevelop the lot, according to the decision.

They filed a claim with the tribunal seeking $5,000 in damages – alleging the sellers breached the contract by failing to deliver “vacant possession” of the property.

The buyers, in support of their position, argued that vacant possession meant the property had to be cleared of all furniture and contents – and that the buyers had tacitly acknowledged this obligation when they arranged for the removal of some of the larger items. Jiang agreed, and found the property was not – in fact – vacant.

“I have no difficulty concluding that, even with the removal of the vehicle, boat, and tires, the respondents breached this term. The photos show the remaining items left inside and outside the house were considerable,” he wrote.

The sellers, Pearl Marie Singleton and Joseph Walter Singleton, argued they were not responsible for removing the remaining debris because the property was sold “as-is with no warranties.”

While the contract did contain the phrase “as-is with no warranties,” the tribunal found that was “insufficient” to relieve the sellers of the obligation to deliver vacant possession. The “as-is” term, according to the decision, referred to things like appliances and fixtures – not moveable items like furniture or debris.

The sellers were found to have breached the contract and ordered to pay $5,000 to reimburse the buyers for the cost of rubbish removal, plus $175 in tribunal fees.