Date Issued:  December 7, 2018

File: SC-2018-002770

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Tashakkor v. Imperial Parking Canada Corporation, 2018 BCCRT 822

Between:

Amir Tashakkor

APPLICANT

And:

Imperial Parking Canada Corporation

RESPONDENT

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant Amir Tashakkor, asks the tribunal to find that he does not owe the respondent $640 for violation fees owing to the respondent, Imperial Parking Canada Corporation, for parking notices because at all times he had a valid parking pass. 

2.      The applicant also asks for $4,200 for time spent disputing the violation fees, including some dispute related expenses, and damage to his credit report. 

3.      The applicant represents himself.  A principal or employee represents the respondent.

 JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      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 relationships between parties that may continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

5.      The tribunal may decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, or a combination of these. I find that I can fairly resolve this dispute by writing based on the documents and written positions before me because there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

6.      The tribunal may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, whether 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.

7.      Under tribunal rule 126, in resolving this dispute, the tribunal may order a party to do or stop doing something; order a party to pay money; or order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUES

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the applicant owes the respondent for violation fees charged by the respondent, and if not, what is the appropriate remedy

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      The applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.  I have commented upon the relevant evidence and submissions only to the extent necessary to give context to these reasons.

10.   Over the course of 10 months the applicant received 11 violation notices from the respondent at Surrey Memorial Hospital.  The applicant says the notices are invalid because he had a parking permit from Fraser Health Authority which allowed him to park at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

11.   The respondent says that the permit only allows parking in designated areas.  And, that at Surrey Memorial Hospital those designated areas were the north parkade, south parkade and an identified surface lot.  The applicant says no one told him that the permit had restrictions and denies receiving the health authority memorandum outlining where he could use his parking pass.

12.   Of the 11 notices, the applicant paid 2 of the violation fees and the respondent voided another.  This dispute concerns the remaining 8 notices and violation fees.  On the evidence, I find that:

a.    2 notices were from when the applicant parked in reserved physician parking with his permit,

b.    2 notices were from when the applicant parked in reserved clinic patient only parking,

c.    1 notice was from when the applicant parked in a reserved electric vehicle charging only area,

d.    1 notice was from when the applicant did not display any permit,

e.    1 notice was from before the applicant had a permit, and

f.      Neither party gave further details of 1 notice.

13.   The applicant also produced information about 3 other tickets.  I find that those 3 tickets are not relevant to this dispute.  Those tickets were issued by a different company and there is no evidence to suggest that they are otherwise connected to this dispute.

14.   There is no evidence that the applicant disputed the violation fee to the respondent for any of the eight remaining notices.

15.   Each of the notices were from lot #1510.  On the evidence, it appears that lot #1510 includes underground parking, above ground parking and surface parking.  There was no evidence how that lot related to the north parkade, the south parkade, or the surface lot where the applicant could allegedly park with his permit. 

16.   It is undisputed that the respondent posted its contractual terms for parking on a sign in lot #1510.  The terms apply to anyone parking on the lot.  And, I find that they applied to the applicant.  Under the terms the respondent may charge a violation fee for anyone parking without a valid pass or contrary to the posted rules.

17.   On the evidence, I find that the applicant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the respondent improperly charged violation fees.  My reasons follow.

18.   I find that 4 of the notices were given when the applicant parked without a valid pass contrary to the posted contractual terms.  Once before the applicant had a permit, once without displaying any permit and twice without displaying a valid permit for the area in which the applicant parked.

19.   On the evidence, I find the applicant failed to show that he was parked with a valid pass, as required.  The applicant does not dispute that the health authority document restricts parking locations under his permit or that he did not park in one of the designated locations.  Instead, the applicant says that he was not aware of the restrictions and that it was the respondent’s obligation to tell him.  The application of the permit restrictions is not dependant on the applicant’s knowledge.  The applicant had an obligation to inform himself of the permit requirements before parking.

20.   Furthermore, I disagree with the applicant about whose obligation it was to inform him.  I find the respondent did not have an obligation to inform the applicant in advance of the restrictions.  The applicant’s evidence is that he bought the permit from the health authority.  There is no evidence the applicant and respondent contracted for the permit.  The respondent honouring permits issued by the health authority does not create an obligation to inform the applicant of parking requirements.   

21.   I accept that there may have been spaces in lot #1510 that the applicant could park in.  That is one explanation for why the respondent voided one of the applicant’s tickets when the applicant appealed that one violation fee and sent a copy of his permit.  However, without evidence, I am unable to conclude which spaces the applicant could use in lot #1510, if any.

22.   On balance, I find that the applicant’s permit allowed him to park in the north parkade, south parkade or identified surface lot and that he was parked in a different area when given the final 2 notices described above.  Consequently, he was parked in an area displaying an invalid permit and the respondent was entitled under the contract to issue a notice and assess a violation fee.

23.   I find that 3 of the notices were given when the applicant parked contrary to the posted rules.  Twice when parked in reserved clinic patient only parking and once in a reserved electric vehicle charging only area. 

24.   The applicant’s obligation to follow the posted signs existed whether he was parking with the permit or not.  I do not accept that the permit would allow the applicant to disregard posted signs restricting certain areas from general use.  I find that when the applicant parked contrary to the posted signs, the respondent was entitled to issue a notice and assess a violation fee.

25.   Finally, the applicant gave no evidence about 1 of the notices.  The respondent gave broad details of the notice, such as the date and location.  On the evidence provided I cannot say whether the applicant is, on balance, responsible for the violation fee.  The applicant chose not to dispute the notice issued by the respondent.  Given the burden on the applicant, I find that applicant has not proved the violation fee was improperly charged.

26.   Based on my findings above, I find that the applicant has not proved he does not owe the respondent the $640 payment for the violation fees for the eight remaining notices arising from notices for parking improperly in lot #1510.  I dismiss the applicant’s claim.

27.   I would add that while it is not necessary for me to address the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of his time that claim would not have succeeded in any event.  The tribunal does not ordinarily order payment for time spent, which is consistent with the tribunal’s practice of not generally awarding legal fees. 

28.   As the applicant was unsuccessful, under the Act and rules I also dismiss his claim for reimbursement of tribunal fees and dispute related expenses.

ORDER

29.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and therefore this dispute.