An arbitrator’s decision ordering two renters to cover more than $18,000 in repairs following a water leak at their landlord’s home was “patently unreasonable,” a B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled.
In a decision last week, Justice William Veenstra set aside the order and sent the matter back to the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch for re-arbitration – meaning the relief for renters Claudia Drummond and Gregory Dahl might only be temporary.
“While I am satisfied that the analysis of the arbitrator in this case was patently unreasonable, I am not satisfied that the inevitable result is a dismissal of the claim,” Veenstra wrote.
Damage not covered by insurance
The dispute dates back to March 2022, when Drummond noticed a bulge in the basement ceiling of the home they were renting in Surrey.
The court heard Drummond notified landlord Randeep Sangha of the damage “immediately” by text, but that it was too late to avoid $18,757 in repairs – including the cost of replacing cabinets, drywall and baseboards at the property.
The landlord said her insurance company refused to cover those costs, finding the damage was not sudden or accidental, but had occurred over time.
Sangha filed an application through the RTB seeking reimbursement for the repairs – and while the arbitrator who originally heard the case could not determine the exact cause of the damage, she still found Drummond and Dahl had been “neglectful” for not noticing it sooner.
Drummond acknowledged she had not visited the basement in approximately four months leading up to March 2022. A home inspection conducted in November of the previous year turned up no sign of trouble.
“I cannot determine how the damage occurred. However, a reasonable person would conclude something significantly overflowed more likely than not on several occasions based on the different areas of damage,” the arbitrator wrote, in a portion of her decision quoted by Veenstra.
“While the tenants may have immediately cleaned any water to the upper floor … the damage to the lower area was not detected.”
On top of awarding damages to Sangha, the arbitrator also allowed her to keep a $1,200 security deposit from Drummond and Dahl, who moved out of her property in April 2022.
Arbitrator confused tenants
Reviewing the case, Veenstra took several issues with the RTB decision – including that the arbitrator had apparently failed to differentiate between two separate units in Sangha’s home.
The court heard Drummond and Dahl moved into the main unit upstairs in November 2018, and that Drummond began renting the basement in March 2019 as a workspace.
The judge noted Dahl was not a party to the tenancy agreement for the basement. Only Drummond and her ex-husband, who had apparently helped with the rent, were named on the document.
But in the arbitrator’s decision, she suggested Drummond and Dahl both had “control and possession” of the basement unit – the only place where the damage was visible – and described each of them each as “neglectful” for failing to spot the problem earlier.
“Nothing explains the nature of any obligation on the petitioners to periodically visit the basement,” Veenstra wrote. “Nothing explains how any such obligation could operate when Mr. Dahl was not a tenant of and had no legal right to access the basement.”
The judge noted that Sangha had returned the security deposit for the basement unit to Drummond and her ex-husband in May 2022.
Pending the outcome of the case once it is brought back to the RTB, Veenstra also set aside the order allowing Sangha to keep the $1,200 deposit for the upstairs rental.