B.C. damage deposit dispute centres on 'extremely strong' ferret odour

B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal has weighed in on a dispute where a landlord refused to return a tenant's damage deposit due to the "strong odour" left behind by two pet ferrets.

In a decision posted online Monday, tribunal member Kristin Gardner said that an "unreasonable animal smell can constitute 'damage'" but that it needs to be proven the odour is "objectively unreasonable" – which she noted "may be difficult."

In this particular case, Samantha Jones rented a room from Klara McCallum for about four-and-a-half months. The tribunal said it was "undisputed" that a $750 damage deposit was paid and never returned.

Jones said she left the room "clean and tidy," the decision says. McCallum said the lingering smell from the pet ferrets meant she had to replace furniture and hire cleaners, and that it deterred prospective tenants from moving in, which delayed her finding someone else to rent the room.

"The applicant does not dispute that ferrets generally have a musky smell and that there may have been a slight odour when she moved out. However, the applicant says she left the room otherwise very clean," the decision says.

Both parties submitted evidence that Jones came back two days after moving out, mopping the floors and washing the walls after she was told by McCallum that there was a residual smell.

The tribunal's decision said photos and videos showed the room was in a "reasonably clean and tidy state" and that the only issue being contested was that of the smell and its impact.

Ultimately, the tribunal sided with Jones and ordered McCallum to return the damage deposit.

The tribunal does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather it assesses cases based on "what is more likely than not" to have occurred.

Gardner said that McCallum had not persuaded the tribunal that the smell was unreasonable, or that it lingered past the date on which Jones re-cleaned the room.

"Overall, I find there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant left an unreasonable animal smell in the room when she moved out," the decision says.

Beyond that, even if the smell was unreasonable, Gardner said McCallum had not provided enough proof that furniture and curtains needed to be replaced.

"There is no supporting evidence that the odour penetrated these items, as alleged," the decision says. "For example, there is no statement or other evidence from an independent third party that they smelled any odour in these items."

While an invoice for cleaning was submitted into evidence, Gardner said there was no way to prove that the cleaners were hired to clean a particular room for a particular reason, and that both the date of the cleaning and the amount of work done cast further doubt on the claim that the expense was "related to the alleged ongoing odour."

The claim that prospective tenants were deterred from renting the room, the tribunal found, was also unproven.

In addition to the damage deposit, McCallum was ordered to pay Jones $19.74 in pre-judgment interest and $138.67 in fees.