Ever been in a disagreement with your landlord?
While many people enjoy mutually beneficial relationships with their landlords, countless others face difficulties.
But it may surprise you how many of these disputes are about sex.
The BC Residential Tenancy Branch sees a range of complaints from landlords and tenants and a sizeable share of them involve sex — whether it's seeing sexual activities or hearing them.
Here are just a handful of the multiple decisions involving sex-related issues in past years.
Warning: These disputes contain provocative and offensive language.
In a matter regarding the Beverly Villas (the tenant's name is protected for privacy), the hearing dealt with an application by the tenant under the Residential Tenancy Act for cancellation of one month to end tenancy for cause as well as an or order requiring the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the filing fee.
In this dispute, the RTB claimed that they warned the tenant several times about noise. Some of the audible disturbances included "loud video games" and "walking loudly on the floor" but they also mentioned "sex activities." However, they don't elaborate on the definition of "activities."
The landlord did not meet the burden of proof on the balance that the tenant engaged in illegal activities and therefore the RTB was in favour of the tenant.
Several people complained of "very loud sex noises" by the tenant in this dispute, who was represented by an advocate. The landlord stated that a person living next door to the tenant complained of very loud music as well as "sounds of the tenant masturbating — including moaning and the sound of the tenant's release." At the time, the landlord tried to get the building manager to corroborate the sounds, but the incidents occurred outside of their shift.
The neighbour actually made a log of the "masturbatory noises" over several months but eventually became frustrated and left the building. Following this, the new neighbour stated that they "heard their neighbour loudly masturbating and finishing by the wall. This got louder and louder as time progressed until one day it sounded three-dimensional, so disgusting."
The tenant tried to say that the two neighbours lacked credibility since they were the only ones in the building who brought the issue up, but the RTB said the fact that they did it independently one of another was conclusive evidence.
Sex in the kitchen
This hearing dealt with the landlords' application for dispute resolution and to cancel a one-month notice to end the tenancy as well as monetary compensation. The landlord said their daughter lives with the tenant and is one of the owners of the accommodation. The landlord added that the daughter and the tenant were meant to be living as "single girls" together but trouble started once the tenant got a new boyfriend.
According to the daughter, the tenant had loud sex in various places in the accommodation, including the kitchen, the living room couch and in the tenant's room with the door open. The daughter also alleged that on one occasion she could see the tenant's boyfriend was naked in the kitchen through a window and she was uncomfortable entering the rental unit.
In this case, the RTB sided with the tenant as it found insufficient evidence to show the tenant put the property at risk.
In this dispute, the tenant sought to cancel a notice to end tenancy for cause issued in 2014.
The landlord and other tenants in the building "observed a constant flow of people coming in and out of that apartment...yelling at all hour of the night...[and] people waiting in the hallway."
The tenant agreed that numerous people had attended his rental unit for regular sex parties he hosted, but that he installed a buzzer to minimize disturbance to other occupants. He also said he was unaware his behaviour disturbed other tenants but after discovering that it did he "reduced the number of parties, informed his guests to minimize the noise, and has hosted these parties outside of the rental unit."
The branch ruled in favour of the tenant in this dispute since there was insufficient evidence.