A B.C. woman has been ordered to pay a man $1,479 in damages she caused when she defecated throughout his home while inebriated.
The order was made Feb. 21 by B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal member Nav Shukla.
The ruling said the woman arrived at the man's home on Sept. 14, 2022. He allowed her to stay overnight as she had no alterative accommodations for the night.
During her visit, she "became inebriated and defecated throughout his home, damaging his carpet, recliner, bed, pillows, comforter, sheets, and mattress protector."
The man drove the woman to a hotel. "She also stained his truck's seat that she sat on," the decision said.
The woman denied that she was inebriated and damaged the man's personal property.
“She says that the evening she arrived at [the man's] home, she had just finished working at a lodge and likely had dirt, sawdust, or mud on her,” Shukla said.
The tribunal member heard evidence from the man’s son, who said he woke up at around 3 am on Sept. 15 to use the bathroom and noticed urine and feces all over the floor.
The son told Shukla he immediately went into his dad's room to find him and the woman both asleep.
He said he woke up his dad, who then told the woman “go clean up her mess.”
The son said the next morning, he left with his father for a class and when they returned, the woman was still asleep and had not cleaned up the mess. The man told the woman she had to leave and dropped her off at a hotel.
Shukla also saw photographs of the scene.
“I find [the woman] owed [the man] a duty of care to take reasonable measures to avoid damaging his property,” the tribunal member ruled. “I find [the woman] breached the standard of care by dirtying and staining [the man's] belongings.”
Counterclaim
The woman filed a counterclaim claiming the man made her leave his home without her cellphone, forcing her to purchase a new phone for $690.
Shukla said it was undisputed that the woman left her phone at the man's home. The tribunal said the man found the phone and tried to return it.
“The evidence shows [the man] returned the phone to [the woman] by registered mail on Sept. 24.”
The woman, however, said she entered into a new, long-term phone contract for $688.80 before getting the original phone back.
“[The woman] suggests [the man] purposely delayed returning her phone to her,” Shukla said. “I find this unproven on the evidence before me.”
That claim was dismissed.
The woman also claimed $2,000 in damages for the man allegedly harassing her, her mother, and her former partner.
Shukla said a person cannot sue for harassment in B.C.
