A case that made its way to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) focused on the return of rental deposits, and the landlords tried to argue that B.C. Indigenous land rights meant that the CRT had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
The applicants included DR and her partner, TRB, who claimed that the respondents, KH and XH, in this case, the landlords, withheld their damage and pet rental deposits valued at $2,000.
The applicants said that the deposits were held improperly and didn’t follow the terms of the contract. They asked the tribunal to order the respondents to return the deposits plus interest.
In response, the landlords said that since the rental accommodations were located on the Cowichan Tribes’ reserve lands, the CRT had no jurisdiction to even hear the claims of the renters. The acting landlords also said that the respondents left the property unclean, didn’t provide notice to move out, and moved out late.
“They say these issues compelled them to give the new tenant a $200 discount on their first month’s rent,” the tribunal decision states.
To the claim that the B.C tribunal does not have jurisdiction in accordance with Cowichan Tribe land rights, the tribunal member overseeing the case said, “I disagree. I find the CRT has jurisdiction to hear this matter as a contract dispute.”
The tribunal added, “Since the RTB declined jurisdiction and the Cowichan Tribes do not have any law that applies, I find the applicant is entitled to rely on common law, including the law of contract. The contract was executed within British Columbia, and I do not need to depend upon any provincial statute to determine the parties’ rights under it.”
Read the tribunal’s decision: Roberts v. Hall
Read the full story at Daily Hive: Indigenous B.C. land rights come into question in legal fight over rental deposits