B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has awarded $2,897 to a woman evicted from her home after she told her landlords she was pregnant with the male landlord’s child.
In a June 5 decision, tribunal member Peter Nyhuus said MK rented two rooms in a house leased by DW and EF. Nyhuus anonymized the parties’ identities to protect the identity of MK’s non-party minor child.
MK claimed DW and EF wrongfully evicted her and her eight-year-old without reasonable notice when she became pregnant with DW’s child.
MK also claimed DW and EF did not give her reasonable access to pack her belongings, damaged her belongings when they packed for her, and kept certain belongings.
She claimed the value of the missing and damaged items, which she estimated to be about $10,000.
However, Nyhuus said, MK limited her claim to $5,000, the tribunal’s small claims monetary limit.
DW and EF denied wrongfully evicting MK, damaging or keeping her belongings.
“They say they acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances,” Nyhuus said. “They ask me to dismiss MK’s claims.”
What happened
From May 2021 to June 2022, MK and her child lived with DW and EF at a house the couple was leasing from third-party owners.
MK said the living situation was going well until June 2022, when she found out she was pregnant.
She told DW and EF, news she said caused a "dramatic shift in the dynamics of the household." She said the couple became hostile.
“I find the dynamics likely shifted at this point because MK said she was pregnant with DW’s child. DW was in a 15-year relationship with EF,” Nyhuus said. “The respondents say they were not interested in welcoming MK into this relationship, and that she made repeated and unwelcomed attempts to convince them they were in a three-way relationship.”
MK moved to a friend’s temporarily and soon contacted DW to ask if they could talk.
“DW replied, ‘hell no,’” Nyhuus said. “On June 23, MK texted DW again to say that she would be coming home in a few days. However, the next morning, DW texted MK, ‘You are moving out.’”
MK says she returned to the house June 27 to collect her belongings and claimed EF “physically confronted” her which she reported to police.
DW and EF denied any assault.
On July 1, MK sent an $800 e-transfer to EF for July’s rent. EF declined to accept the transfer and included the message, “You have been told to leave.”
On July 10, MK received an eviction notice with an Aug. 15 deadline to remove her belongings.
MK says she had a miscarriage in early August.
MK said she arrived at the house with friends to remove her belongings. She said DW and EF had thrown most of her belongings onto the lawn, and that DW denied her entry into the house to check for any remaining items.
Nyhuus found DW and EF had packed some belongings and done so poorly.
“I find they are liable for any damages they caused to her possessions,” said the tribunal member.
A witness who helped MK unpack said mouldy, open food was packed with clothing and bedding, the child's clothes were covered in cat urine and fine China wine glasses were wrapped in tortillas.
MK said a computer monitor, a red sectional couch and her grandmother’s heirloom music box were damaged.
“I find MK has proven the respondents caused damage to her belongings and I order the respondents to pay her $1,150 in damages,” Nyhuus ruled.
Other belongings
MK said DW and EF did not allow her to collect all her belongings. They admitted they did not give her access to the house Aug. 15 to look for remaining items.
On Nov. 2, 2022, MK texted and e-mailed requesting the return of various things.
DW claimed she had taken something of his.
“I find both parties were keeping the other’s property as ‘collateral,’” Nyhuus said. “Essentially, they were in a stand-off, each refusing to return the other’s property unless the other did so.”
Nyhuus agreed MK owned multiple items and ordered DW and EF to pay $1,747 for those items.
