VadeLab
AllowedCivil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Societies/Cooperative Association Decisions·

Co-op Cannot Charge for Reasonable Wear and Tear - Share Refund Granted

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled that a cooperative association cannot charge a member for repairs that fall within reasonable wear and tear. The claimant was granted a share refund minus a valid utility charge.

⚖️ Legal holding

A cooperative association cannot charge a member for repairs that fall within reasonable wear and tear.

Topics

reasonable wear and tearshare refunds

Provisions

Cooperative Association Act, s. 13Cooperative Association Act, s. 18

📚 Full judgment

The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.

⚖️ View on the official court website ↗

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The scratches and gouges on the living room floor were considered reasonable wear and tear.
  • The cooperative did not follow its own policies regarding move-out inspections and providing members with repair lists.
  • The utility charge for the gas bill was deemed valid as the applicant canceled his account a month early.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The cooperative attempted to charge for the replacement of the living room floor, which was rejected as unreasonable wear and tear.
  • The cooperative did not provide the applicant with a proper list of repairs required before the move-out inspection.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What was the dispute about?

The claimant argued that he was entitled to a full share refund, while the cooperative association claimed he owed money for damages and utilities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Cooperative Association Act, s. 13 Cooperative Association Act, s. 18

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any damage to their living space falls within the reasonable wear and tear exception to avoid being charged for repairs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered included inspection reports, witness statements, and photographs of the living room floor.

Official source: Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Societies/Cooperative Association Decisions this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Societies/Cooperative Association Decisions (© Province of British Columbia). VadeLab reproduces no part of the decision text; the summary above is VadeLab's own material. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Share refund minus utility charge - Civil Resolution | VadeLab