Feces-smearing tenant won’t have damage deposits returned: tribunal

Article content

A B.C. man accused of smearing excrement on one landlord’s wall and sitting on another’s furniture while “soaked in urine and feces” won’t be awarded thousands of dollars in damages for his early evictions and lost damage deposits, a provincial civil resolution tribunal decided.

Rick Bennell had sued two of his former landlords for kicking him out without a month’s notice and withholding his deposits. From Marcel Oostenbroek, he was seeking $4,300, tabulated as $750 for one month’s rent and $750 in damage deposits along with $2,800 in “allegedly stolen items.”

Article content

Meanwhile, litigation against landlord Charles G. Rasmussen sought $1,800 — $600 for failure to provide notice, $600 for double his security deposit, $50 for cleaning supplies and $50 for two remote controls.

“I note this only adds up to $1,300,” tribunal member Megan Stewart pointed out in her Feb. 4 small claims decision.

Both defendants denied the claims and presented evidence — little of which Bennell denied — characterizing the plaintiff as far from an ideal tenant or roommate.

“Rick Bennell did not provide documentary evidence or initial submissions other than those in his Dispute Notices filed at the start of each proceeding, despite the chance to do so,” Stewart noted.

She said while there was no written agreement between the two, an “undisputed” monthly rental fee of $750 and a $375 damage deposit for a room and shared use of a bathroom and kitchen created “implied terms.”

In defending his case, Oostenbroek testified that “Bennell breached their no-drinking policy, urinated on the bed and the carpeted floor, and smeared feces on walls, a banister, and a door.”

Article content

Article content

“Rick Bennell does not dispute this, so I accept it happened,” Stewart wrote, dismissing the rent claim because such behaviour warranted Oostenbroek to turf his tenant.

Noting Bennell also couldn’t explain why he was asking for twice the damage deposit amount reimbursed, Stewart chose not to award any of it because Oostenbroek had to deal with the mess and “the inherent health risks associated with coming into contact with human feces.”

As for the stolen items — which the plaintiff said included two TVs and remotes, a laptop, a DVD player, a microwave, tools, a blow-up bed, clothing and footwear — Stewart wrote that Bennelll couldn’t prove his claim or the items’ value.

Bennell’s evidence is nothing more than a bare assertion.

Meanwhile, when Bennell began renting from Rasmussen in June of 2021, they signed a written rental agreement for $600 monthly — with a $300 damage deposit — granting him a room and shared use of common areas, all of which was supposed to “be kept tidy.”

Bennell also was prohibited from keeping dangerous or potentially fire-causing articles in his room.

Rasmussen testified to the tribunal that Bennell created a fire risk by leaving “hot dogs to burn on the hot plate he kept in his room after he went out one evening.”

Article content

In another incident, Rasmussen said the tenant “came into the house soaked in urine and feces, lost control of his bodily functions, and used the communal furniture and areas in this condition.”

Again, Bennell didn’t dispute this.

Both breaches of the contract gave Stewart enough basis to forbid Bennell’s rent claim, concluding Rasmussen needn’t have given him notice.

And while Rasmussen didn’t provide photos of the bodily-function fallout, two witness statements confirmed it occurred, with one of them noting they saw “feces ‘mashed’ into the uncovered mattress” in Bennell’s room after he left that day.

As such, Stewart also dismissed the damage deposit claim for the same reasons as Oostenbroek’s situation.

Also tossed were Bennell’s reimbursement claims for the cleaning products and remotes.

Rasmussen tried to claim $1,000 in “dispute-related expenses” to discourage “Bennell’s ‘homophonic, fraudulent, and abusive behaviour,’” but Stewart ruled such damages are only awarded in “extraordinary circumstances” and it wasn’t warranted in this situation.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content