VadeLab
AllowedResidential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia)·

Tenant wins double security deposit and filing fees in dispute with landlord

Case No. AnonDec-301465

📌 In brief

The Tenant won a case against their Landlord in the a person Tenancy a person. They recovered double their security deposit plus interest after the landlord failed to return it within fifteen days of receiving notice or tenancy end, as per BC law.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the Tenancy Act, a landlord must return double the security deposit plus interest if they fail to return the deposit or file a dispute resolution claim within 15 days.

Topics

security depositstenancy disputes

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 38Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 67Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 72

📖 Technical summary

Tenant successfully recovered double the security deposit plus interest minus the returned portion and the filing fee.

📚 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 ↗

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • A tenant is likely to succeed if the landlord does not return the security deposit within fifteen days of the tenancy ending or receiving notice.
  • A tenant is likely to succeed if the landlord does not return the security deposit or file a dispute claim within fifteen days of receiving a forwarding address.
  • A landlord is likely to succeed in getting an Order of Possession if the tenant does not pay rent arrears or dispute the notice within five days.
  • A landlord is likely to succeed in claiming against a security deposit for unpaid rent or cleaning costs if the application is made within fifteen days.
  • A landlord is likely to succeed in getting a Monetary Order if the tenant fails to pay rent before moving out.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A landlord is likely to fail if they do not provide enough proof that they properly served documents to the tenants.
  • A tenant is likely to fail if they do not serve their application documents using the required method, such as registered mail.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

Who was involved?

A Tenant and a Landlord were involved in a dispute over the return of a security deposit.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the Landlord must pay double the security deposit plus interest because they failed to return it within fifteen days as required by law.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 38(6) and 72 of the Residential Tenancy Act (BC) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The Tenant's argument that the Landlord failed to return the security deposit within fifteen days as required by law was central to their success.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the Tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to recover double their security deposit plus interest if the landlord fails to return it within fifteen days.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement, bank records showing payment of the security deposit, and proof that the forwarding address was served on the Landlord were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the Residential Tenancy Branch can typically be appealed to the BC Supreme Court.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is advisable to consult with a qualified lawyer for advice on your specific situation.

Official source: Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) — 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 Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) (© 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.