Bloomberg v. Barr Date:, 2015 BCPC 228

Citation: Bloomberg v. Barr Date: 20150127 2015 BCPC 0228 File No: 13-43850 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Small Claims) BETWEEN: LAURA BLOOMBERG CLAIMANT AND: CHRISTINE BARR DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HER WORSHIP BARBARA CORNISH Counsel for the Claimant: F. Nwaney Counsel for the Defendant: A. Hopkins Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Hearing: November 19 & December 17, 2014 Date of Judgment: January 27, 2015 [ 1 ] The Claimant, Laura Bloomberg, seeks $3,981.00 from the Defendant, Christine Barr, for her contribution of rent and utilities for several months while they were living together as roommates. The Defendant does not deny that she has an obligation to repay the Claimant some monies, but argues the amount owing is significantly lower than that claimed. Basic Background to the Dispute [ 2 ] On October 15, 2012, the Claimant and the Defendant (the “Parties”) moved into a two bedroom suite in Vancouver (the “Suite”).

The Suite was 918 square feet, comprising a living room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms, one of which was larger than the other and had an ensuite bathroom. The Claimant took the larger bedroom, and the Defendant, the smaller one. [ 3 ] The Property owner, Robert Clark, prepared a one year lease agreement, with a monthly rent of $2,200.00 (the “Lease”). That document included both of the Parties’ names and contact information under the heading of “Tenants”. The Claimant signed the Lease, the Defendant did not.

Upon moving into the Property, the Defendant’s father paid $2,200.00 on account of the first month’s rent and the Claimant paid $1,100.00 for the damage deposit. [ 4 ] At the time the Parties moved in they had no clear agreement as to how the rental and utilities payments were to be split between them. The Defendant says she told the Claimant that her budget for both rent and utilities was $1,000.00 per month. The Claimant says that the rental amount should be $1,000 per month plus utilities.

The Parties had a number of discussions in the months after they moved in but ultimately failed to reach any agreement on the total amounts to be paid by each of them. During this time, the Claimant paid the rent and the utilities bills (consisting of internet and hydro). [ 5 ] The Parties lived in the Suite from October 15, 2012. On January 16, 2013, however, the Defendant notified the Claimant that she would be moving out and did so on February 14, 2014.

A new roommate did not move in until May 15, 2013. [ 6 ] As noted, this claim relates to the amounts that the Claimant says are owed to her for both rent and utilities up until May 15, 2013. The Claimant's Evidence [ 7 ] The Claimant was the only witness for her case. She testified that while the parties had seen some other apartments, she alone, met with the landlord, Mr. Clark, inspected the Suite, and negotiated the applicable rent in advance of moving in. She also testified that she knew the Defendant was “looking at paying around $1,000.00 a month” and that they had previously discussed sharing utilities.

She denied, however, the existence any agreement between the Parties that the Defendant would only pay only $1,000.00 inclusive of utilities towards the rental of the Suite. [ 8 ] No formal lease documentation was signed in advance. Rather, the Claimant’s evidence was that Mr. Clark left the unsigned lease documentation on the kitchen counter on the day the Parties moved into the Suite.

That documentation comprised a number of different documents, including a standard form “Residential Tenancy Agreement”, a “Rental Addendum”, a document entitled “Contact information for Tenants”, a Strata Property Act , form K , “Notice of Tenant’s Responsibilities” ( with appended strata rules) and two letters dated October 15, 2012 the first acknowledging inter alia receipt of keys and the second, providing permission for the Defendant to occasionally have a small pet in the Suite (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Leasing Documents”). [ 9 ] The Claimant’s evidence was that she signed all of the Leasing Documents, with the exception of the letter regarding the Defendant’s pet.

She testified that she later found out that that the Defendant had not signed the Tenancy Agreement but had signed the remaining documents left by Mr. Clark. [ 10 ] The Claimant stated that prior to moving into the Suite, she and the Defendant had not specifically agreed as to their proportionate share of the rent but had agreed to measure the square footage of the each of their respective areas of exclusive use within the Suite so as to determine what each should pay.

The Claimant says that the measurements were done sometime in November, 2012 and indicated that the Defendant's contribution should be $1,000.00 per month based on the following measurements: Total Suite area – 918 sq ft Claimant’s room – 164 sq ft Defendant’s room – 103 sq ft Shared space – 651 sq ft [ 11 ] The Claimant testified that the Defendant refused to pay $1,000.00 plus utilities and a stalemate ensued thereafter.

As noted, the Claimant paid the rent of $2,200.00 and the utility bills for the months of November, December and January. [ 12 ] The Claimant confirmed that the Defendant advised her she was moving out by an e-mail dated January 16, 2013 and that she

looked for a new roommate by asking friends and posting notes at school. She confirmed that the Defendant moved out on February 14, 2013 and that a new roommate moved in on May 15, 2013. [ 13 ] The Claimant also provided copies of the utilities invoices for the five and a half months period for which she claims contribution from the Defendant. The invoices total $819.62. [ 14 ] On cross examination, the Claimant agreed that since the Defendant’s father had paid the whole of the first month’s rent she was essentially “breaking even” by the end of the next month on December 15 th .

She also confirmed that she was initially unaware that the Defendant had not signed the Tenancy Agreement and that she had expected her to do so. She confirmed the presence of both signatures on the remaining documentation provided by Mr. Clark. [ 15 ] The Claimant was also referred to a string of e mails between the Parties commencing on January 7th and concluding on February 14, 2013. The relevant portions of those emails are as follows: January 7, 2013 email from the Defendant to the Claimant: “Dear Laura, I feel it would be best to agree on the rent breakdown and utilities together.

As I understand things we have agreed that we will share all the common areas and the parking stall will be shared between us... Our bedrooms are private areas, and the other areas of the apartment are shared. I can offer you two options: (

a) Pay you $1,000/month which includes my portion of utilities and internet, you would be responsible to pay utilities and internet each month and the remaining portion of the rent. (

b) Pay you $880/month for rent and pay you for half of the utilities and internet cost each month (which I would reimburse you for the utilities and internet on a monthly basis). *Please let me know which option will work best for you. As far as the damage deposit goes … there is no need for me to participate in it since that is between you and the landlord. If I damage anything in my room or the common area, I will act responsible to rectify the problem if there is one.

In the meantime, the damage deposit you gave is held in trust by the landlord and will be returned to you by the landlord provided the apartment is in the same condition at the end of the lease. I look forward to concluding this issue.” [ 16 ] It appears after this email, various family members became involved in the dispute because the next email to which the Claimant was referred to in cross examination was dated January 14, 2013 and was again from the Defendant to the Claimant.

It provides in part: “Dear Laura, I felt that you should know that the letter I copied and pasted from my dad may have seemed a bit overly aggressive because I only copied and pasted some of it. I have attached the whole letter dated December 7, 2012 so that you can read it in its entirety. You will see he was being more than reasonable with his approach. While we were looking for places and until now I have made it clear that my budget was not to go over $1000 including utilities and I remain in that position.

I feel I have been honest with what my budget was, which is why you got the master bedroom etc. with an understanding that you would be paying more. In your brother’s email, when he says that the comparisons per square foot should be the same. I don’t believe this is true because if for example you had the same building renting the basement suite and penthouse, both built in the same year, they would not be the same cost per square foot.

In another example, if you had two rooms exactly the same size, however one of them included a joining private bath and a walk in closet and a more sound proof location, do you honestly think they should be valued at the same amount per square foot? Your room has the convenience of having a private attached bathroom, built in custom closet, blackout blinds, larger window and better sound isolation.

If you go to this website [reference is made to a website called “splitwise”] and enter in our information you will see that the rent I have offered to pay in my email dated January 7 th , 2013 are more than reasonable and in many ways generous and in line with what they would deem fair given our apartment information. See attached splitwise calculations which would suggest you pay $1339.08 per month and I pay $860.92. … …we need to resolve the rent issue. This has gone on far too long. I stand by my offer dated January 7, 2013 (see attached email) and look forward to your response…”

[ 17 ] As noted, two days after the January 14 th email, the Defendant advised the Claimant of her intention to move out in 30 days. [ 18 ] The next email is from the Defendant to the Claimant and is dated January 29, 2013. It provides in part: “Unfortunately, I have not received a response from you in regards to my previous 2 emails regarding rent. I would like to pay you rent as this has gone on for too long and needs to be resolved.

Therefore I have chosen to go with option B paying you $880/month for rent (an amount deemed fair, if not over generous by a neutral, unbiased third party, the website rent calculator, splitwise). Here are my calculations: October 15- November 15 - $2,200 - Christine paid Nov 15 – Dec 15 - $2,200 – Laura paid Dec 15 – Jan 15 - $2,200 – Laura paid Jan 15 – Feb 15 - $2,200 – Laura Monthly rent for Christine $880 x 4 months = $3,520 $3,520 - $2,200 = $1,320 owed by Christine not inclusive of utilities In addition, I will pay you my portion of the basic utility charges from time to time as the invoices are tendered.

I will direct the $1,320 into your account once I have an email confirmation from you of your acceptance. Please advise at your earliest convenience.” [ 19 ] It appears that the Claimant sent the Defendant a text regarding her moving date. That text is quoted in an e-mail from the defendant to the Claimant dated February 13, 2013 at 3:20pm as follows: “Its technically new month on 15 th . So if someone is movin in tho on Friday, its prob best if u can move everything Thursday. I told ppl 15 th because that’s when monthly rent is due. Ps.

Robert said u have to pay me $100 for moving out because he will get billed every time the elevator is used for moving and also to leave all of the keys please. Also how and when are u planning on paying me the monthly rent that u owe me? Just so you know I will charge interest. Sorry I need to be forward with this it has gone on too long” [ 20 ] After quoting the text, the e mail continued in part: “…The only reason I have not paid you is that you have failed to respond to my previous e-mails… dated January 7 and 14, 2013 as well as the e mail below dated January 29, 2013.

As you can see I have made numerous attempts to pay you and would like to put this behind us and pay you asap and am waiting for you to reply to my e-mails.” [ 21 ] On February 13, 2013 the Claimant responded in part as follows: “The new roommate is moving in and will be paying $1,000 plus utilities per month so I expect you to pay the same. ... I do not feel comfortable subsidizing for you not paying just because you don’t want to. You were willing to pay what the room is worth moving in.

You chose to move into an expensive home and had almost willingly before we moved into this apartment had considered the place on Trafalgar St which was going to be $1,250 per person. The square footage was calculated fairly as you are only paying for your room and half the shared space. As stated in the previous e- mail we are even including your bathroom as shared space (only your belongings are in there and I don’t use it).

Now you are moving out you definitely can find cheaper rent …However, for the time you spent in our home it’s only fair to pay your share and I expect you to pay the price of the square footage of your room plus half of the utilities… Therefore I am kindly asking you to pay $1,000 rent and half the internet and half hydro bills.”

[ 22 ] The Defendant responded by e-mail later that day by reiterating the offer of $880/month referenced in the January 29 th e mail. The next day, on February 14, 2013 the Claimant responded by e mail: “The market value of the rent owing to date is $1,000 plus utilities per month. I expect to be paid ASAP.

As evidence (sic) by the new person interested to move in she would be paying $1,000 + util (including cable) without the parking spot.” [ 23 ] On cross examination, the Claimant acknowledged sending or receiving all of the e mails and the text referenced above and confirmed that the new roommate did, in fact, pay $1,000.00 per month plus utilities from the date she moved in on May 15, 2013. The Claimant was not cross examined as to the reason why the new roommate did not move into the Suite in mid-February as suggested by the e mails of February 13 th and 14 th .

Defendant's Evidence [ 24 ] In addition to the Defendant, herself, the landlord, Mr. Clark gave evidence in the Defendant’s case. Mr. Clark’s Evidence: [ 25 ] Mr. Clark’s evidence was that this was the first time he had rented an apartment and that he downloaded the Tenancy Agreement from the internet. [ 26 ] He testified that at all times, he understood that he was contracting solely with the Claimant. He said that he met with her in advance and felt that she really liked the space and that he could trust her.

She alone negotiated the rent and as far as he was concerned his agreement to rent the Suite was with the Claimant alone. He did not ask the Defendant to sign the Tenancy Agreement because, in his view, the identity of any roommate was “not really relevant”, except that he understood he needed the names of all people who lived in the Suite to be listed on the Tenancy Agreement and also needed both to sign for keys and acknowledge receipt of the strata rules. [ 27 ] His evidence was that he referred to the Defendant as a “tenant” on the Leasing Documents because she was living in the Suite.

He was concerned that the Suite not become a “flop house” and that in order “to protect himself” he listed the names of all people who were legally entitled to live in the apartment. He was not concerned when the Defendant advised that she was moving out because his agreement was with the Claimant. Defendant’s Evidence [ 28 ] The Defendant’s evidence was that when she and the Claimant were looking for an apartment she had a budget of $1,000.00 per month, inclusive of utilities, which she discussed with the Claimant.

She stated that it was on this basis that she agreed to occupy the smaller bedroom in the Suite in the expectation that she would pay proportionately less rent in keeping with her budget. [ 29 ] The Defendant testified that prior to moving in, she did not meet or discuss the proposed tenancy with Mr. Clarke. Her first meeting with him was the day she moved in on October 15, 2012. On that day she did not sign the Tenancy Agreement because she did not consider herself a tenant.

She did, however, sign the remainder of the Leasing Documents because she did agree to abide by the strata’s rules and did receive keys for the Suite. [ 30 ] The Defendant’s evidence was that although she discussed her budget of $1,000.00 per month inclusive of utilities with the Claimant in advance of renting the Suite, there was no specific agreement as to the exact amount of their respective contributions.

She testified that, as noted in her January 2013 e-mails, she suggested her contribution be calculated with the assistance of the website “Splitwise”, which calculates rent between roommates based on a variety of both objective criteria such as square footage, and subjective criteria such as access to bathrooms, windows and closet size. [ 31 ] The Defendant provided a Splitwise printout, which calculated her portion of the rent to be $860.92 per month.

That printout was based on criteria including not only the square footage of the Suite (characterized by adjectives such as “tiny”, “small”, “normal”, “generous” or “enormous”) but also on more subjective criteria such as rating of soundproofing or windows (described by adjectives such as “normal” or “awesome”).

Based on the Splitwise printout the Defendant says she offered to pay the Claimant as much as $900.00 in rent or $1,000.00, with the inclusion of utilities. [ 32 ] The Defendant also confirmed that on January 16, 2013 she advised the Claimant of her intention to move out and that she understood from the Claimant’s e-mails and text that a new roommate would be moving in immediately on her departure. She also testified that Mr. Clark expressed no concern when she advised him she was moving out and that she paid him the “moving out fee” of $100.00.

Position Taken by the Parties The Claimant: [ 33 ] The Claimant says the Defendant owes her $3,981.00 for unpaid rent and utilities.

She says that the Parties were co-tenants of the property and as such, are jointly liable for the rent payments for the period of October 15, 2013 – May 15, 2014 (this period includes the four months the two were co-habitating as well as the one and a half months that it took the Claimant to secure a new roommate). [ 34 ] The Claimant also submits that before moving in the Parties discussed sharing utilities but had not reached an agreement regarding the exact amount of rent to be paid by each of them.

She says they discussed allocating the square footage of the Suite but could not agree on what was to be included in each of the Parties’ allocation.

She contends that based on square footage allocation, the reasonable amount of rent to be paid by the Defendant is $1,000.00 exclusive of utilities. [ 35 ] The breakdown of the Claimant's claim of $3,981.00 is as follows: • $5,500.00 for five and half months of rent contribution at $1,000.00 per month; • $409.81 for half of the Utilities expenses incurred during five and half months; • $115.26 in interest on the amounts above; • $156.00 in court costs; and • $2,200.00 subtracted from the total amount owing for contributions already made.

The Defendant’s Position: [ 36 ] The Defendant argues that she was never a tenant under the Lease but rather only the Claimant’s subtenant. She acknowledges that she owes the Claimant some monies for her portion of the rent and utilities during the time she lived in the Suite but disputes the amount claimed. [ 37 ] The Defendant says that prior to moving into the Suite she informed the Claimant that her budget was limited to $1,000.00 per month inclusive of utilities and that after they moved in she and the Claimant discussed a number of different payment arrangements.

These included calculating contribution based on each of the Parties' respective square footage, as well as a combination of square footage and amenities, calculated by 'Splitwise' but in the end they never actually concluded an agreement as to their respective contributions. [ 38 ] The Defendant says that any assessment of her rental payment ought to take into account that the Claimant benefitted from a larger bedroom, an ensuite bathroom, a more sound resistant room, a larger closet, and a bedroom window with a better view.

The Defendant submits that her contributions for rent ought, therefore, to be set at $880.00 per month as this amount best reflects the discrepancy in amenities available to the Parties, and is consistent with the calculation provided by “Splitwise”. [ 39 ] The Defendant agrees to pay the Claimant half of the utilities for the four month period during which she inhabited the Suite, but not for the one and a half month period after she left. She says that she provided the Claimant with 30 days’ notice of her intention to move, which was sufficient in the circumstances.

Additionally, she says the Claimant advised her that she had secured a new roommate to move in on February 15, 2014, and therefore should not be held responsible if the new roommate did not, in fact, move in until May, 2014. [ 40 ] The Defendant has quantified the total amount owing to the Claimant to be $1,609.00, as follows: $3,520 for four months of rent contribution at $880.00 per month; $289.82 for half of the Utilities Costs incurred during four months; and $2,200.00 subtracted from the total amount owing for contributions already made. [ 41 ] Finally, the Defendant says that this is not an appropriate case to award interest and Court fees because she has made several attempts to settle this dispute with the Claimant, and claims the Claimant is responsible for the non-resolution of the dispute at an earlier date.

Legal Issues [ 42 ] The issues to be decided in this case are: 1. Was the Defendant a co-tenant or a sub-tenant? 2. What is owed by the Defendant for utilities and rent?

3. Should interest and court fees be awarded to the Claimant? Analysis 1. Was the Defendant a co-tenant or sub-tenant? [ 43 ] As noted, the Claimant contends that as a matter of law the Defendant was a co-tenant and as such, is liable for her proportionate amount of the lease payments for the duration of the lease term, less any amounts recovered in mitigation from the new tenant. In contrast, the Defendant says the she never intended to be a co-tenant.

Rather, her legal status was simply as a sub tenant requiring only that she provide reasonable notice of her intention to vacate. [ 44 ] At law, a lease is simply a form of contract and it is a well-established principle of contract law that in order to form a valid contract there must be evidence that the parties had a “meeting of the minds” or “consensus ad idem”. That is, that both parties intended to enter into a legally binding agreement and that they have the same understanding of the terms of their agreement.

Such mutual comprehension is essential to a valid contract. [ 45 ] In this case, the Claimant contends that there was a contract of tenancy between Mr. Clark as landlord and the Defendant as tenant. Unfortunately, the uncontradicted evidence of both Mr. Clark and the Defendant is that, in fact, neither intended to enter into a contract of lease with the other. In short, while the Claimant contends that such a contract existed, the evidence of the alleged parties to the contract is to the contrary. In the face of such evidence I am unable to accede to the Claimant’s position.

I conclude therefore that at the material time, the Defendant was not a co-tenant but rather, simply a sub-tenant of the Claimant. [ 46 ] In reaching this conclusion I have considered the Claimant’s reference to the various Leasing Documents in which the Defendant is identified as a “tenant”. In this regard, I accept Mr. Clark’s evidence that he used this reference to identify persons who were legally entitled to be in the Suite and not as referring to the specific person or persons with whom he contracted.

I also find that the absence of the Defendant’s signature on the Tenancy Agreement was deliberate and in keeping with her intention to be a sub-tenant rather than a co-tenant with the Claimant. [ 47 ] The significance of this conclusion is that as a sub tenant, the Defendant is entitled to give reasonable notice of her intention to vacate the suite and I accept that in the circumstances of this case, 30 days constitutes such reasonable notice.

In short, I conclude that any financial obligation owed by the Defendant to the Claimant regarding the Suite ended effective February 15, 2013. [ 48 ] In her closing statement, the Claimant argues that the Defendant cannot be considered a sub-tenant under the Lease because Mr. Clark did not consent in writing to the sub-tenancy, pursuant to section 34 (1) of the Residential Tenancy Act . In my view, the remainder of the Leasing Documents, other than the Tenancy Agreement itself, sufficiently evidence Mr. Clarke’s consent, if such consent, is in fact required and I make no specific finding on this point. 2.

What is owed by the defendant for utilities and rent? [ 49 ] While there were clearly some general discussions about the Defendant’s budget being $1,000.00 I am not persuaded, on the evidence, that the Parties had a common understanding as to whether that amount was inclusive or exclusive of utilities. [ 50 ] While it is clear on the evidence, that both Parties intended that each would contribute to the payment of rent and utilities during their co-habitation of the Suite, it is equally clear that prior to moving in, the Parties had not, in fact, concluded a specific agreement regarding either the quantum of their respective contributions or how that contribution was to be determined.

It was only after moving in that the Parties began to have any specific discussions regarding rent with each suggesting an allocation that they considered to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. They quickly discovered, however, that they fundamentally disagreed as to how their respective contributions should be calculated and considered the proposal of the other party to be unreasonable. [ 51 ] I conclude therefore, that, at best, the evidence only establishes that as of October 15, 2012, the Parties had an agreement to agree in the future as to their respective contributions.

As a matter of law, however, agreements to agree do not create contractual obligations. In short, there is no contractual basis for the claim. To deny the claim would, however, in my view defeat the reasonable expectations of the Parties and would unjustly enrich the Defendant, who has acknowledged throughout that some monies are owing to the Claimant. [ 52 ] I rely on R.K. v. McBride , [1994] B.C.J. No. 2791 (P.C.) ; Prudhomme v. Shaddock , [2005] B.C.J. No. 1504 (P.C.) ; and J oey Beenz Coffee bar Ltd. v.

Di Stasio , [2011] B.C.J. (P.C.) for the proposition that this Court has some limited equitable jurisdiction to fashion remedies in circumstances, such as this, where to do so would avoid hardship and would be consistent with this Court’s stated purpose to resolve claims in a just, speedy, inexpensive and simple manner.

It is also evident from the Parties submissions that both agree that this Court should determine the respective rental contributions based on principles of fairness regarding the relative allocation and usage of space within the Suite. [ 53 ] Dealing first with the issue of the utilities, I accept the Defendant’s acknowledgement that an equal division of those costs is reasonable.

The utilities documentation provided by the Claimant for the October to February period comprise Shaw invoices of $154.93 and the Hydro invoices of $541.51, for a combined total of $696.44 and I find that the Claimant is entitled to payment of half this amount, i.e. $348.22 from the Defendant. [ 54 ] With respect to rent contribution, from an evidential viewpoint I am not persuaded that any allocation of respective rent ought properly to take into account such inherently subjective factors as the criteria listed referenced on the website, “Splitwise”.

An objective criterion such as square footage is, in view, a more reliable indicator of relative use and therefore of respective allocation of cost.

[ 55 ] In their submissions, both Parties refer to the use of a square footage calculation as an appropriate measure to determine rent allocation but suggest different calculations based on whether the exclusive areas are limited to just bedrooms or include closets, and bathrooms.

In the absence of an agreement, equity dictates the criterion of fairness to be applied, but on the evidence presented, it is difficult to determine which of the various square footage allocations suggested by the Parties is the most reasonable or fair in the circumstances. [ 56 ] Doing the best I can on the evidence presented, there appears to be no dispute that Claimant had access to a larger bedroom and personal bathroom which she could use to the exclusion the Defendant.

In this regard, the evidence establishes that the Suite measures 918 square feet and the Claimant's bedroom and ensuite bathroom represent 220 square feet of exclusive space (i.e. 24% of the Suite’s total space). The Defendant's bedroom was 119 square feet, (13% of the Suite’s total space) and the Parties shared 579 square feet, (63% of the Suite’s total space). I find that this is a fair allocation of the space and based on this allocation the Claimant is responsible for 55.5% of the monthly rent, and the Defendant for 44.5%.

The Defendant’s portion of the total rental amount is therefore $979.00 per month or $3,916.00 for the four month period. After subtracting the amount already paid, the remainder is $1,716.00. [ 57 ] Accordingly, I find that the Claimant is entitled to receive $2,064.22 from the Defendant for rent and utilities during the October, 2012 to February, 2013 period. 3. Should interest and court fees be awarded to the Claimant? [ 58 ] In my view, success is divided and as such, I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate case to award court fees to either party.

I also find that this is not an appropriate situation to award interest to the Claimant. In my view, both parties have contributed to the non-resolution of this dispute at an earlier date. [ 59 ] I am, however, persuaded that the Defendant incurred some costs as a result of the Claimant’s non-attendance at the May 7, trial date and pursuant to R. 20(6) of the Small Claims Court Rules, award the sum of $76.25 for mileage and parking costs incurred as a consequence of that attendance.

Decision [ 60 ] In the end result, I award the Claimant a total of $1,987.97 representing the amount owed for rent and utilities for the October, 2012 to February, 2013 period less the costs thrown away related to the May 7, 2014 trial date. ___________________ Barbara Cornish Adjudicator