VadeLab
Allowed in PartCivil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims·

Tenant Entitled to Security Deposit Return in Roommate Dispute

Case No.

Topics

security depositrent refundpre-judgment interest

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 47

📚 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 ↗

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant is entitled to the return of her $450 security deposit since the landlord did not prove any entitlement to keep it.
  • Pre-judgment interest of $17.75 is awarded to the tenant on the security deposit refund, calculated from the date she first asked for the deposit back.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant is not entitled to a rent refund for November since she voluntarily left before the end of the month.
  • The tenant's claim for compensation for the door lock is dismissed due to lack of evidence showing the lock was damaged.

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 the tenant is entitled to the return of her security deposit and interest because the landlord did not prove entitlement to retain it. The tenant is not entitled to a rent refund or compensation for the door lock due to lack of evidence.

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 the landlord's failure to prove entitlement to retain 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, as she was entitled to the return of her security deposit and interest.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have evidence to support their claims, especially regarding the condition of the property and payment of rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered included recordings of conversations, text messages, and the absence of evidence showing the door lock was damaged.

Official source: Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims — 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 Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims (© 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.
Tenant Entitled to Security Deposit Return - Civil | VadeLab