Home-sellers blame housing crisis when B.C. property not vacated by move-in date

A "For Sale" sign is seen in an undated Shutterstock image.

Two B.C. homebuyers have been awarded more than $2,400 after discovering the former owners' tenants still living in their property on the possession date – a contract breach the sellers blamed on the province's housing crisis.

The dispute was heard this month in B.C.'s small claims tribunal, which rejected the sellers' argument, finding the ongoing crisis "does not relieve them of their responsibilities" as laid out in their purchase and sale contract.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal heard new owners Shawn Carroll and Angela Marie van den Broek were promised a vacant home, but that there were tenants in both the main unit and basement unit when they took possession in September 2021.

Carroll and van den Broek had been planning to live in the basement while undergoing renovations upstairs. And while the upstairs tenants did move out days later, the tribunal heard the downstairs tenants continued living in the basement until the middle of January 2022.

In her deicison, tribunal member Andrea Ritchie noted sellers Laurie Allen and Darren Adams never denied breaching their contract, they only argued the circumstances were "out of their control” because of the housing crisis in their area.

The decision does not specify where in the province the property is located, or provide any details on the difficulties the sellers’ tenants might have had finding a new home.

B.C.'s housing crisis has resulted in skyrocketing rents in many communities, and made it increasingly difficult for renters to find comparable accommodations at similar rates after being forced to move.

But those challenges are moot in this case, Ritchie wrote.

"The problem for the (sellers) is that they agreed to provide the applicants with vacant possession … and failed to do so," the tribunal member said. "The only issue is what damages are the applicants entitled to as a result of the breach."

Carroll and van den Broek said they were forced to spend 10 nights in a bed and breakfast before they were able to temporarily move into their realtor's home at no charge. They also claimed meals, storage costs for their belongings, and $1,290 in unpaid rent from the downstairs tenant.

Since the sellers had already paid for some of the buyers' short-term accommodations, Ritchie determined they were on the hook for another $2,437 worth of expenses, plus $15 in pre-judgment interest and $87 in tribunal fees.

The buyers were not reimbursed for a number of other claimed expenses, including wasted vacation time Carroll had intended to use moving into their new home.