Tenant Entitled to Deposit Refund in Roommate Dispute
📌 In brief
A tenant who rented a room from a roommate and paid a $500 deposit was asked to leave the premises after a dispute. The tenant requested the return of the deposit, but the roommate refused to return it. The Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled in favour of the tenant, ordering the roommate to return the deposit.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a refund of their deposit if the landlord cannot prove entitlement to retain it.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant is entitled to the return of his deposit after leaving the premises.
📚 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 asked for the return of his deposit after leaving the same day he moved in.
- The landlord did not provide evidence showing the tenant caused any damage to the property.
- The landlord did not prove that the deposit was needed to cover any unpaid rent due to a prior agreement.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord claimed she kept the deposit because the tenant failed to pay the first month’s rent.
- The landlord attempted to claim an additional $500 for the remainder of the first month’s rent.
- The landlord tried to argue that finding another roommate justified keeping the deposit.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ordered the roommate to return the tenant's $500 deposit.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was entitled to a refund of the $500 deposit after leaving the premises.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided the tenant was entitled to the deposit refund because the roommate did not provide sufficient proof that the tenant was responsible for any damages or breaches of the agreement.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 47 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the roommate did not provide sufficient proof that the tenant was responsible for any damages or breaches of the agreement.
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 they have clear agreements and documentation regarding deposits and refunds to avoid disputes.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the agreement between the tenant and the roommate, the payment of the deposit, and the circumstances surrounding the tenant's departure.