Would-be renter not entitled to refund over ‘small amount’ of cat vomit in suite: B.C. tribunal

A "room available" sign is seen in this undated image. (Shutterstock)

A man who backed out of an agreement to rent a room after he saw a small amount of “cat vomit and droppings” in the unit is not entitled to a refund, B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled.

In a decision handed down earlier this month, the tribunal had to decide whether the would-be renter had the right to terminate the roommate agreement without notice on the grounds that the living conditions were unsanitary.

In February of 2024 Santiago Ortega Ojanguren agreed to rent a room from Xandria Thomison, paying $950 for the first month before moving in, according to tribunal member Maria Montgomery’s decision.

But when Ojanguren showed he decided not to move in, based on what he encountered in a storage room.

“He found vomit and excrement in a room in the basement,” the decision said.

A photo submitted as evidence did show a “small amount of vomit and droppings in a small room” and Thomison told the tribunal her “elderly cat was sick without her knowledge.”

Given that the presence of the vomit and droppings was undisputed, the tribunal had to decide whether the mess constituted a breach of the roommate agreement.

In this case, Montgomery noted, there was no written contract or lease agreement. However, she also noted that – in some circumstances – “contractual terms can be implied.”

When it comes to roommate agreements – in general – providing sanitary accommodations is an implied term, the decision said, adding that in this case “there was an implied term that each party would maintain a reasonable level of cleanliness to permit the accommodation’s residents to live communally.”

If an implied term of a contract is breached, the decision notes, damages can be awarded and Ojanguren was seeking a rent refund of $950 as compensation for the breach.

However, the breach must be “material” meaning one “so substantial that it makes continuing with the contract impossible or almost impossible,” Montgomery wrote.

But The mess in this case did not rise to that level, the decision found.

“The vomit and excrement was small in volume and promptly cleaned up by the respondent. Put simply, this was a minor incident that did not constitute a breach of the agreement,” Montgomery continued.

The decision also found the cat vomit and droppings were in a storage room – a space the tribunal found was not communal and therefore not included in the roommate agreement.

Even if the mess had constituted a breach, the tribunal found Ojanguren would not have been entitled to a refund because “he did not give the respondent an opportunity to remedy the breach.”

The claim was dismissed.