Tenants in Vancouver have launched a legal action against their landlord after being evicted less than a month after they moved into the rental property. The eviction notice cited “no visitors” as the reason for their eviction, and the tenants are now seeking damages for the cost of the move, storage fees, and other costs associated with the eviction. The landlord has denied the allegations, and the case is ongoing.
Not getting your security deposit back after being evicted from a rental property is a reality many are grappling with, but a Vancouver renter took the matter to court.
In many cases, a landlord has the right to withhold a tenant’s security deposit for breach of the terms of that security deposit, whether for damage or other reasons. In other cases, however, it is completely unlawful.
Tammy Anderson was the evicted tenant in this small claims case before the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, and she took the property’s owner, Michael Kuzmick, to court to get her money back.
Kuzmick evicted Anderson after less than a month, claiming she broke house rules.
Anderson denied breaking any rules and said she was evicted without notice and demanded $2,925, which included a refund of $650 in rent paid, a $325 security deposit and include a $450 pet deposit and other damages.
Kuzmick argued Anderson was not entitled to her claims because she broke the rules, including damaging the room she rented.
According to a court decision, Anderson moved into the room in late May 2022. The court decision states that neither party provided a copy of a lease agreement. The tribunal’s decision states that at one point Anderson signed an addendum to crime-free housing noting the house rules. This is a point that Anderson has not disputed.
The addendum prohibited certain conduct, including smoking indoors, criminal activity, assault, threats of assault, and loss of peace and tranquility. There were also no visitors after 10pm except for one weekend overnight guest. The rules also noted that Anderson was not allowed to cook after 11 p.m. and was required to tidy up behind him, close and lock doors and windows closed and lights off when not in use.
It also notes that a “$200 non-refundable deposit” is required for pets.
Trouble began on June 3 when one of Anderson’s family members parked a van in the driveway overnight. Kuzmick suggested this was against the rules so Anderson was “out”, but the addendum made no mention of parking.
A dispute broke out between the two parties on June 5, and Anderson’s dog “barely brushed” Kuzmick’s arm. Police were called and Kuzmick confirmed via text message that Anderson had two days to move out. There was more discussion over the next few days, but eventually Kuzmick agreed that Anderson could stay until the end of June. Then, on June 13, Kuzmick changed his mind and said Anderson had to move out no later than June 17, which the tribunal’s decision says she did.
“I find that Mr. Kuzmick terminated the lease with a notice period of 4 days to June 17,” says the decision of the arbitral tribunal.
“Kuzmick says Ms. Anderson was asked to leave not because of a specific incident, but because of several ‘issues of concern’ which he wants to explain but hasn’t explained.”
The member of the tribunal overseeing the case points to other confusing terms in the appendix above, including a three-strike rule. The court found that Kuzmick could not prove the three rule violations and warnings. The only proven violation was that Anderson once left the bedroom light on.
“I find that the single incident of leaving a light on did not give Mr. Kuzmick the right to evict Ms. Anderson without notice under the addendum or otherwise.”
This finding meant that Kuzmick had to give Anderson a reasonable deadline before evicting them, which he didn’t; he only gave her four days.
The court found that Anderson was entitled to the remaining rent of $282. Kuzmick was unable to prove that Anderson caused any damage during her stay, allowing her to receive a full refund of the $325 security deposit. She also received $250 of her $450 pet deposit as $200 was non-refundable.
Overall, Kuzmick was on the hook for $857.
This case is an excellent lesson in documenting everything during a lease, whether you are a tenant or a landlord. However, it’s important for renters to remember in BC, as the province ejected people from their homes across Canada last year.
Don’t miss interesting posts on Famousbio
