VadeLab
AllowedResidential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia)·

Landlord Wins Unpaid Rent Case: Tenant Owes $11,521.77

Case No. AnonDec-301440

📌 In brief

In this case, the a person Tenancy a person ruled in favour of the landlord who sought a monetary order for unpaid rent and utilities totaling $14,521.77. After deducting the security deposit of $3,100, the tenant was ordered to pay $11,521.77.

Topics

unpaid rentsecurity deposit

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 26Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 38Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 47Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 67

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully obtained a monetary order for unpaid rent and utilities, retaining security deposits in partial satisfaction.

📚 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 ↗

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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

  • The landlord did not return the tenant's security deposit or file a dispute within 15 days of getting a forwarding address or notice.
  • The landlord asked for money because the tenant did not pay rent.
  • The landlord asked for money because the tenant caused damage or loss by not following the rental agreement, and the landlord tried to reduce the loss.
  • The landlord asked for an order to get the property back because the tenant did not pay rent or challenge a 10-day notice within five days.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The person making the claim did not properly deliver important documents, like a notice or proceeding package, according to the rules.
  • There was no formal rental agreement made and agreed upon by both the landlord and tenant.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

Who was involved?

A landlord and tenant were involved in a dispute over unpaid rent and utilities.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the landlord was entitled to a monetary order because the tenant failed to pay as agreed under their tenancy agreement.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Residential Tenancy Act of British Columbia sections 26, 38, 47, and 67 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The landlord's evidence showing unpaid rent and utilities was critical to the decision.

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

The decision was in favour of the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If you are a tenant behind on rent, it is important to communicate with your landlord and make payment arrangements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Tenant account ledger, monetary order worksheet, utility bills, and the tenancy agreement were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the Residential Tenancy Branch can typically be appealed to the BC Supreme Court.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer for specific guidance on your situation.

Official source: Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) — 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 Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) (© 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.