Date Issued: October 12, 2018

File: SC-2017-007153

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Zahedi v. Rohanian, 2018 BCCRT 616

Between:

ARSHID ZAHEDI

Applicant

And:

Zahra Rohanian

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.         The applicant, Arshid Zahedi, claims that he loaned the respondent, Zahra Rohanian, $1,420 between April 2016 and November 2017. The respondent admits that she borrowed $450 but denies any other loans from the applicant. Prior to the alleged loans, the parties were in a romantic relationship. The parties are each self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

2.         These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 3.1 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (Act). The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the tribunal must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

3.         The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In some respects, this dispute amounts to a “he said, she said” scenario with both sides calling into question the credibility of the other. Credibility of witnesses, particularly where there is conflict, cannot be determined solely by the test of whose personal demeanour in a courtroom or tribunal proceeding appears to be the most truthful. In the circumstances of this dispute, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the tribunal’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary. I also note the recent decision Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282 at paragraphs 32 to 38, in which the court recognized that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is in issue. I therefore decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

4.         The tribunal may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The tribunal may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

5.         Under tribunal rule 126, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may make one or more of the following orders:

a.      order a party to do or stop doing something;

b.      order a party to pay money;

c.      order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUES

6.         The issue in this dispute is whether the applicant loaned the respondent money and, if so, how much.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

7.         In a civil case such as this, the applicant must prove his case on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the applicant must prove that he made the alleged loans to the respondent. Because a loan is a contract, the applicant must prove what the terms of the contract were, such as the amount that the applicant loaned and when the respondent must pay it back. A contract does not need to be written in order to be enforceable, but the terms of an oral contract can be more difficult to prove.

8.         The applicant states that he made the following loans to the respondent:

•           $450 towards the respondent’s damage deposit;

•           $500 on legal fees related to the respondent’s claim with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC);

•           $200 in expenses for the respondent’s business

•           $150 for the respondent’s personal expenses; and

•           $120 in court filing fees related to the respondent’s claim with ICBC.

9.         To support the claim for the damage deposit loan, the applicant provided a printout from his internet banking showing that he transferred $450 to the respondent on September 8, 2017. The respondent admits that this was a loan and does not dispute that she must pay it back. I therefore accept that the respondent owes $450 to the applicant.

10.      As discussed above, in order to find that there was a loan from the applicant to the respondent, the applicant must prove that there was a specific amount loaned to the respondent and that the respondent agreed to pay him back.

11.      The applicant says that he loaned the respondent all of the money he alleges and that the respondent agreed to pay him back. In her Dispute Response filed at the outset of this tribunal proceeding, the respondent denies that she ever spent money on the applicant’s credit card or took money for personal expenses. In her submissions, the respondent denies that any other money that the applicant gave her was a loan that had to be repaid. Therefore, for the remaining loans other than the $450 damage deposit, the dispute comes down to the credibility of the applicant and the respondent.

12.      For the reasons that follow, I find that the respondent’s evidence is more credible with respect to the remaining loans.

13.      First, the amounts alleged by the applicant do not match the evidence he presented in support of his claims. For example, he alleged a loan of $200 for charges to his credit card, but the charges on the credit card statement he provided only add up to $158.91. In addition, the credit card statement is not in the applicant’s name. He alleged a loan of $150 for personal expenses but the only evidence that appears to relate to this claim is a $60 chiropractor receipt in the respondent’s name, although in the applicant’s Dispute Notice he states that the $150 was specifically for clothing. The applicant’s failure to be accurate or precise in his claims suggests that the applicant’s evidence about the loans is not reliable.

14.      Second, the applicant provided little documentary evidence to support his claims even though I find it very likely exists. For example, he provides no documentary evidence about the court filing fee the applicant says he made on the respondent’s behalf as part of a claim against ICBC. With respect to the $500 loan for legal fees, the only documentary evidence the applicant provided was a credit card statement with a $500 Paypal charge on April 6, 2016, which the applicant says was for the respondent’s lawyer. I accept that this is evidence that the applicant paid a lawyer on April 6, 2016, but the applicant did not provide any other documentary evidence, such as a receipt from a law firm or an invoice showing what services the law firm provided, to corroborate that it was the respondent’s ICBC lawyer. With respect to the $60 chiropractor invoice, the fact that the applicant has an invoice in the respondent’s name suggests that the applicant did, in fact, pay this bill, but there is no corroborating evidence that it was a loan.

15.      Furthermore, the only evidence of written correspondence between the parties that the applicant provided is one page of text messages between the parties. All but one of the messages is not in English. The only English text message is from the respondent to the applicant, in which she claims that the applicant owes her $1,616. There is no counterclaim before me and that alleged $1,616 debt is not for me to decide. However, the message comes in the midst of a longer text thread, which the applicant states was about the $450 the respondent owed to the applicant and the applicant did not provide a translation of any of the other messages. The respondent’s assertion that the applicant owes her $1,616 is not evidence in support of any of the loans that the applicant alleges.

16.      Third, the respondent readily admitted from the outset of this dispute that the $450 was a loan and that she owed him that money, even though the applicant did not provide any documentary evidence to support this claim. This admission suggests that the respondent has been forthright in her evidence.

17.      Finally, the bank records that the applicant provided to show the $450 loan also show that he sent the respondent $400 on September 30, 2017 and $350 on November 1, 2017, which is an amount in excess of the other loans claimed by the applicant. This fact supports the respondent’s submission that the applicant gave her money that was not a loan. 

18.      Therefore, I find that it is more likely than not that the only loan that the applicant made to the respondent was the $450 that the respondent has admitted. I find the applicant has not proven that the other money at issue in this dispute was given to the respondent with the agreed understanding that the respondent would be obliged to repay it.

19.      I dismiss the applicant’s remaining claims for repayment of loans.

20.      Under section 49 of the Act, and tribunal rules, the tribunal will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for tribunal fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. However, given that the applicant failed to prove any of the disputed claims, I find the applicant has only been partially successful and I order the respondent to repay him half of his claimed tribunal fees. The applicant did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

21.      Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $522.69, broken down as follows:

a.      $450 as reimbursement for the damage deposit loan

b.      $67.50 in tribunal fees

c.      $5.19 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act

22.      The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

23.      Under section 48 of the Act, the tribunal will not provide the parties with the Order giving final effect to this decision until the time for making a notice of objection under section 56.1(2) has expired and no notice of objection has been made.  The time for filing a notice of objection is 28 days after the party receives notice of the tribunal’s final decision.

24.     Under section 58.1 of the Act, a validated copy of the tribunal’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia.  A tribunal order can only be enforced if it is an approved consent resolution order, or, if no objection has been made and the time for filing a notice of objection has passed. Once filed, a tribunal order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.