A landlord sued a B.C. tenant for unpaid rent and utilities, claiming he was treated unfairly and at one point had his Wi-Fi password withheld.
In a dispute in B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal, Rebecca Sarrazin sued Agata Namieszynska for $1,300 in rent and $97.40 in utility bills.
Namieszynska denied Sarrazin’s claims and said she was harassed and illegally evicted.
This is the court’s decision.
Sarrazin was renting the house in question from the owner. Sarrazin lived in a rented house, and Namiesinska had a suite on the lower floor. The court characterized the incident as a roommate dispute.
The rental agreement was signed on September 13, 2020. Rent was $1,300 per month, payments were due on the 27th of each month, and the security deposit was $650. The rental was a monthly contract.
On April 22, 2022, Sarrazin’s partners emailed Namiesinska to terminate the agreement. He said they wanted to “go in a new direction with this house” and would begin accepting homestay students from nearby universities.
In British Columbia, requesting to host a homestay student is not legal eviction. If Sarrazin wanted to instead rent the suite to a close relative, it would be subject to rental rules regarding evictions.
He told Ms. Namieszynska that if she paid an additional $433, she could own the home until June 20, 2022, or June 30, 2022.
Both sides agreed that Namieszyńska would leave by June 20th.
“Since Ms. Sarrazin did not give two full months’ notice and Ms. Namieszynska is entitled to withhold one month’s rent under section 51 of the RTA, Ms. Sarrazin will receive additional rent. “I find that you are not entitled. I dismiss the claim,” the court’s decision states.
Namieszynska did not deny that she owed $97.40 in utility bills, but suggested she should not be forced to pay just because she was unfairly evicted.
Namieszynska said she was harassed by Sarrazin in April 2022, when she bought a new internet router. Sarrazin told his B.C. renter that he would not receive his WiFi password until he paid his outstanding utility bill. However, the court noted that the rental agreement required Sarrazin to provide Internet service.
“There was nothing in the agreement that allowed Mr. Sarrazin to withhold internet service.”
Sarrazin’s utility bill was also dismissed.
