A B.C. tenant was unsuccessful in proving that mold growing in their B.C. rental unit caused their health issues.
The landlord filed for dispute resolution under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) for damages to the return unit, money owed for rent and utilities, and to retain all or a portion of the security deposit.
The tenants filed a claim for compensation for damages and for the landlord to return some of their personal property. They first proposed a claim exceeding the allowable limit in the Small Claims Court and narrowed their claim to the following:
- Material losses: $23,179.83
- Anticipated medical expenses: $4,000
- Estimated material losses: $2,606
- Aggravated damages: $2,606
- Storage and remediation: $2,606
The hearings occurred over three days in December 2023, January 2024, and March 2024.
The tenancy began on Dec. 1, 2022, with a monthly rent of $2,000 and a security deposit of $1,000. The landlord retained the tenants’ deposit. No mold was found during the tenant's move-in section.
A report called the “Report of Residential Premises and Contents” noted some issues, including stains, nicks and ticks, and a dryer vent, among others. The landlord and tenant agreed that the dryer exhaust pipe was disconnected at move-in. The tenant believed it caused hot air to blow into the unit, causing skin issues for the family, including their infant daughter.
Tenants notice mushroom growing in the bathroom
In late January 2023, the tenants "noticed a mushroom growing in the bathroom of the master bedroom." The landlord's son immediately removed it, recaulked the shower, and purchased paint. However, no further investigation of the area behind the wall was conducted.
Following the mushroom discovery, the tenants suspected there was a larger mold issue and that it was causing their health issues. They informed the landlord about their concerns, noting that testing and remediation were necessary. The landlord said they would do this in early April when they returned from Mexico.
The tenants saw various health professionals, including a nurse practitioner and a naturopathic doctor, with the latter providing supplements for “mycotoxin detox." The landlords said the rental unit is 12 years old and has no history of mold. Additionally, they said the previous tenants did not experience any health issues living in the rental unit.
On March 16, 2023, the tenants notified the landlords by email that they would be moving out on April 15, 2023, because of the mold. The landlord responded by saying, “Thank you, accepted.” The email didn't mention the rent payment between March 16 and April 15. On April 2, 2023, the landlord asked about paying half a month’s rent for April 2023. Shortly thereafter, the tenants said they would forfeit their damage deposit for April's rent.
The tenants left the rental unit on April 7, 2023, noting it was "no longer possible to live in the rental unit because of the unsanitary conditions." However, the tenants left some belongings behind that the landlord found during a move-out inspection on April 15, 2023. The keys were not returned.
The tenant said that the unit was a "biohazard," and when they tried to return to get their stuff, they experienced rashes and chest pain.
Landlord retains security deposit to pay for rent
The landlord and tenant mutually agreed that the tenant did not owe a full month's rent for April 2023 since they stated they would move out mid-month. However, they did not pay that amount and told the landlord to keep their damage deposit, which equalled half a month's rent ($1,000). The arbitrator felt it was reasonable for the landlord to retain the deposit.
The rental agreement stipulated that the upstairs and downstairs tenants were responsible for splitting the cost of utilities (electricity, gas, garbage). The tenant did not pay the March 2023 bill, and the landlord sought $103.83 for the gas bill (half of $207.66) and $214.09 for the electricity/garbage bill (half of $428.17). The tenant argued that they had to pay the previous tenant's utility bill when they moved in and did not feel they should have to pay this one.
The Residential Tenancy Board (RTB) arbitrator decided that the tenants were on the hook for the first half of March (since they vacated the unit in mid-April) but weren't responsible for the second half of March. The bills were divided in half, awarding $158.96 to the landlord.
The landlord said the tenants broke a tile that couldn't be replaced because replacements were unavailable. Instead, the 12-year-old flooring was replaced completely. The landlord spent over $6,000 on new materials, tools, loss of rent, and more to replace the floors. The arbitrator accepted the tenant's testimony that the tile broke due to "reasonable wear and tear" and noted that the landlord's monetary claim was disproportionate to the damage.
The landlord attempted to claim $200 for wall damage, but the arbitrator noted that they did not submit sufficient evidence. Similarly, they tried to claim $100 for improperly installing a dishwasher, but the arbitrator said they gave the tenant permission and risked it being improperly installed. Plus, landlords typically install large appliances.
The landlord also attempted to claim over $1,100 for mold testing despite not believing an issue existed in the rental unit. The arbitrator noted that it "defies logic" to hold the tenants responsible for unnecessary testing and denied the claim.
The tenants left significant personal belongings behind, believing they were contaminated. However, the landlord needed to dispose of them before cleaning the unit and showing it to a prospective tenant. The landlord also stored the items for one month at a storage centre, and they claimed over $100 for that cost.
The arbitrator agreed that the landlords should be reimbursed for the storage centre invoice ($101.92), the legal ad ($152.41), landfill charges ($98.30), and garbage bags ($31.89). They also awarded $250 for the labour involved in dealing with the items and $50 in damages for the general cleanliness of the unit.
The landlord was also awarded $102.14 for four locks that had to be re-keyed because the tenant did not return the keys and $25.00 for their labour.
The landlord also wanted the tenant to pay for professional carpet cleaning. However, the arbitrator did not find this was a reasonable request after a four-and-a-half month tenancy.
RTB sides with landlord in the mushroom case
The tenants argued that the landlords didn't respond reasonably and responsibly to the ongoing mold problem, resulting in health issues and other losses. They testified there was evidence of it growing by the sink, windows, and the toilet bowl. From December 2022 to April 2023, the tenants experienced various symptoms, particularly related to their skin, and their daughter had elevated levels of mycotoxins six months following the end of the tenancy.
The arbitrator wasn't convinced that the mold in the rental unit caused the tenant's health issues. While they accepted that an area of the unit had mold and a mushroom, this did not prove that this issue caused health problems.
"The tenants are clearly careful and conscientious individuals who took their well-being and that of their family extremely seriously. It is inexplicable then, that the tenants did not take pictures or write to the Landlords about any visible mold in the rental unit (other than the mushroom)," the arbitrator noted in their ruling.
"For example, the tenant [named in documents as LL] said that she would clean the toilet bowl each week and that mold would re-appear within three to four days. Despite this, not a single picture of the toilet bowl was submitted, nor did the tenants ever raise this issue with the landlords."
The arbitrator added that the bathroom sink/caulking pictures show wear but not a mold problem. Consequently, the tenants did not have compelling evidence to abandon their belongings in fear of mold contamination.
The landlord was granted a monetary order for the rent, utilities, storage centre, legal ad, landfill charges, garbage charges, fuel, locks, cleaning, and labour time. They also retained the damage deposit, worth $1,075.71 (with interest). The remaining amount minus the damage deposit awarded to the landlord is $974.91 (see slide two).
