Damage deposit must be returned despite dirty dishes, B.C. tribunal finds

A woman washes dishes using soapy water. (iStock/Gilaxia)

A woman who refused to return a security deposit on the grounds her former roommate caused a nuisance by leaving dirty dishes in the sink failed to convince a B.C. tribunal the move was justified.

Annie Verma, who rented a room in a basement suite shared with four other people, argued her $300 damage deposit was withheld wrongfully when she moved out and filed a claim with B.C.’s Civil resolution Tribunal seeking its return, according to a decision posted online last week.

Rattan Kaur, who rented the room to Verma for $750 a month, argued she had grounds to keep the deposit, submitting the tenancy agreement as evidence.

“The tenancy agreement contained an addendum, which Mrs. Verma also signed,” tribunal member Amanda Binnie wrote.

“Relevant to this dispute, that addendum said that if Mrs. Verma caused a nuisance, she would be asked to leave in three days and would not get her security deposit back.”

However, as the decision explained, Kaur bore the burden of proving Verma had caused a nuisance, which is legally defined as “substantial and unreasonable interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of property.”

Kaur’s evidence Verma had caused a nuisance was, according to Binnie, insufficient to support the claim.

“Other than one photo of unwashed dishes in a sink in the parties’ messages, Mrs. Kaur provided no evidence that Mrs. Verma was not cleaning up after herself,” the decision said.

“This is particularly problematic for Mrs. Kaur given she admits there were four other tenants in the basement.”

Kaur also told the tribunal Verma had caused a nuisance by “harassing and swearing at her” during an argument over the deposit.

“Even if Mrs. Verma did swear or raise her voice during the parties’ argument, I find Mrs. Verma was understandably upset in the context of being told she might not get her security deposit back,” Binnie wrote.

“Mrs. Kaur also admits she was not afraid during that incident. I find this single incident was not a substantial and unreasonable interference with Mrs. Kaur’s use and enjoyment of the property.”

Kaur was therefore ordered to return the $300 within 30 days of the decision.

B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act governs agreement between landlords and tenants, but does not cover roommate agreements, the decision noted.