Tenant Wins Damage Deposit Return in Roommate Mold Dispute
📌 In brief
A tenant who left a damage deposit was able to recover it after moving out due to mold discovery. The Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled that the landlord failed to prove the deposit was used to cover legitimate damages beyond normal wear and tear.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to the return of their damage deposit unless the landlord proves the deposit was used to cover legitimate damages beyond normal wear and tear.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully recovered her damage deposit after moving out due to mold discovery.
📚 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 her damage deposit because the landlord did not prove the mold was damage beyond normal wear and tear.
- The tenant likely did not cause the mold during her short stay.
- The tenant offered to clean the room herself.
- The tenant was awarded pre-judgment interest on the damage deposit.
- The tenant was awarded her tribunal fees as the successful party.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for cleaning costs was rejected because they were not related to the tribunal proceeding.
- The landlord did not provide proof for claimed postage and travel expenses.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ordered the landlord to return the tenant's damage deposit.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord could keep the tenant's damage deposit after the tenant discovered mold in the room.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant, ruling that the landlord had not proven the mold was damage beyond normal wear and tear.
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 landlord did not provide sufficient evidence that the mold was damage beyond normal wear and tear.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have clear evidence of damage beyond normal wear and tear to justify withholding a damage deposit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photos showing mold and an invoice for cleaning, mold removal, and painting were provided by the landlord, but were not deemed sufficient evidence.