Roommate Returns Share of Security Deposit After Early Move-Out
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to their share of a security deposit when they have fulfilled their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
📚 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.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tribunal had authority over the dispute because it concerned an oral agreement between roommates about a security deposit, not the tenancy agreement itself.
- The parties agreed that the respondent would find a new roommate and add them to the tenancy.
- The applicant was successful and is entitled to reimbursement of her tribunal fees.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent's claim that the applicant's actions significantly restricted their ability to secure a replacement tenant was not supported by evidence.
- The respondent did not provide a receipt or details for their claim of dispute-related expenses.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 118 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant had fulfilled her obligations under the tenancy agreement and was therefore entitled to her share of the security deposit.
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 may be entitled to their share of a security deposit if they have fulfilled their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The texts exchanged between the parties and the email from the landlord showing the payment of the full security deposit to the respondent mattered.