Landlord Granted $1,197.91 Unpaid Rent Order in Surrey
📌 In brief
The landlord won a case against a tenant for unpaid rent in March 2026 after the tenant vacated without paying. The court ordered the tenant to pay $1,197.91, including part of their security deposit and filing fees.
📚 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant Wins Double Security Deposit in BC Tenancy Case
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) BC RTB Grants Landlord $2,295 Monetary Order for Unpaid Rent
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Landlord Granted $751.52 Unpaid Rent Order in Surrey
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Landlord Obtains Order of Possession for Unpaid Rent in Surrey
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant Wins Challenge Against Incomplete 10 Day Notice for Unpaid Rent
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) RTB BC Grants Landlord $11,521.77 for Unpaid Rent and Utilities
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant wins $3,465.91 for double security deposit and filing fee in BC RTB
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant wins $4,692.45 in double deposit refund from BC RTB
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) RTB Grants Order of Possession for Unpaid Rent in Victoria
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Landlord Wins Order of Possession and Unpaid Rent Order for $3,400
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant Wins Double Security Deposit Refund in BC RTB Decision
- Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) Tenant wins $1,710.18 for double security deposit and filing fee in BC RTB
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- A landlord is favored if the tenant fails to pay rent.
- A tenant is favored if the landlord fails to return the security deposit or file a claim within fifteen days.
- A landlord is favored if the tenant leaves the rental unit in an unclean condition.
- A landlord is favored if the tenant's non-compliance causes damage or loss.
- A landlord is favored if they apply to claim against the security deposit for unpaid rent or cleaning costs within fifteen days.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A claim is dismissed if the party making it fails to provide sufficient evidence of serving necessary documents.
- A claim is dismissed if the party making it fails to follow the required method for serving documents.
- A claim for rent or compensation is dismissed if no formal tenancy agreement was established.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that the tenant must pay $2,200 in unpaid rent and authorized the landlord to retain part of the security deposit and recover the filing fee.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the unpaid rent of $2,200 for March 2026 and the landlord's request to retain part of the security deposit and recover the filing fee.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the landlord, ruling that the tenant remained responsible for paying rent until the date they vacated the rental unit, which was March 30, 2026.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancy Act (BC), sections 67, 38, and 72 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenant had not provided a forwarding address and had not paid the rent for March 2026.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they must ensure they provide a forwarding address and pay their rent on time to avoid such rulings.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the testimony of the landlord and the proof of service form indicating that the Proceeding Package was served in person on March 30, 2026.