Landlord who claimed $18k for bad cheques has case bounced

A Coquitlam landlord who had been seeking $18,000 in unpaid rent from a former tenant recently had her case dismissed in B.C. Supreme Court.

Landlord Yu Chen had terminated her tenant’s tenancy in the spring of 2024, explaining at the time that she’d be moving into the unit.

After moving out, the tenant testified that they gave Chen their forwarding address and e-transfer information so the landlord could return the security deposit.

The tenant, who was not named in court documents, was told Chen was having an issue with their bank account.

Approximately three months after moving out, the tenant returned to the Coquitlam home to talk to Chen about their security deposit but found a new renter living in the property.

Because Chen didn’t move into the home, she was ordered pay the tenant 12 times the $3,105 monthly rent. As the landlord also failed to either return the tenant’s security deposit or file a claim within 15 days, Chen was ordered to pay the tenant double his deposit for a total of $40,431.

Approximately five months after the arbitrator’s ruling, Chen launched a notice of dispute for $18,605 in unpaid rent. Her application was dismissed.

However, she brought the matter to B.C. Supreme Court, asking Justice David Layton to set aside the previous decision as patently unreasonable.

Chen charged that there were multiple occasions between 2020 and 2024 when the tenant failed to pay the rent. However, she claimed she didn’t realize the money was missing until the spring of 2025.

Chen contended that she didn’t know: “that an NSF or bounced cheque meant that the money had not gone into her bank account,” according to the judgment.

While the tenant acknowledged financial hardship during the pandemic, he submitted all arrears were repaid, producing a text message with the landlord’s property manager that indicated no rent was missing.

The tenant further suggested Chen was alleging unpaid rent because of the order to pay him $40,431.

The previous arbitrator had concerns about the reliability of Chen’s evidence due to a gap in bank statements.

Chen claimed she was unaware of the significance of the bounced cheques. That explanation is inconsistent with a text message sent to the tenant by Chen’s property manager, Justice Layton concluded.

In 2021, the property manager sent a text to the tenant, explaining that Chen called him to say he had to pay the money owing from previous bounced cheques or face eviction.

“These statements are materially inconsistent with the landlord’s evidence before the arbitrator that she was at that time ignorant of the nature of bounced cheques, which in turn undermines her explanation as to why she could have believed there was no rent outstanding at that time,” Layton stated.

Layton dismissed the landlord’s petition.