Tenant Entitled to Damage Deposit and Compensation in Commercial Lease Dispute
📌 In brief
In a commercial lease dispute, the Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled that the tenant is entitled to the return of their damage deposit and compensation for breaches of the lease agreement, including failure to provide internet services.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant is entitled to the return of their damage deposit and certain damages for breaches of the lease 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 tenant was entitled to the return of its damage deposit because the landlord did not prove the property was in poorer condition.
- The landlord did not prove it was entitled to a deduction for a squeaky door.
- The landlord did not mitigate damages by not responding to the tenant's offer to remove glass shelves.
- The parties' agreement had an implied term that an internet hookup would be available.
- The tenant's decision to purchase a satellite internet device was reasonable and flowed from the landlord's breach.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for libel was dismissed because the tribunal has no jurisdiction over such claims.
- The landlord's argument that an internet hookup was installed in 2017 was incorrect.
- The tenant's claim for paint was dismissed because there was no agreement for the landlord to provide touch-up paint for tenant-caused damage.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant, finding that the landlord breached the lease agreement by failing to provide internet services and returning the damage deposit.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were cited in the decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's proof that the landlord failed to provide internet services as agreed and did not return the damage deposit.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have clear documentation of any agreements and any breaches by the other party.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included communications about the lease agreement, invoices for services, and notices regarding the lease termination.