Small Claims Decisions

Date Issued: December 31, 2018

Amended Decision Issued: January 14, 2019

File: SC-2018-005649

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Contact Resource Services Inc. v. Alblas, 2019 BCCRT 56

Between:

Contact Resource Services Inc.

Applicant

And:

Christopher Alblas

Respondent

1.      This is a preliminary decision of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal).

2.      The issue is whether the applicant Contact Resource Services Inc. is out of time to bring its claim against the respondent Christopher Alblas.

3.      I only refer to the evidence and submissions below to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

4.      The applicant is represented by employee Angelika Sawicka. The respondent is self-represented.

5.      These are the formal written reasons of the 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 to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

6.      This is a debt claim. The important dates are as follows:

a.    On January 22, 2008, the respondent opened an account with Canadian Tire.

b.    On July 5, 2012, the respondent made his last payment on the account.

c.     In the Dispute Notice, the applicant said the account was charged off January 7, 2014. In submissions the applicant said the account was charged off March 22, 2013

d.    On August 2, 2018, the Dispute Notice was issued.

7.      The Limitation Act applies to disputes before the tribunal. A limitation period is a period within which a person may bring a claim. If that period expires, the right to bring the claim ends, even if the claim would have been successful.

8.      In British Columbia, the current Limitation Act became law on June 1, 2013. It provides that a debt claim be started within two years of when it was discovered.

9.      For claims discovered before June 1, 2013, the old Limitation Act applies. Under the pre-June 1, 2013 Limitation Act, a debt claim had to be started within six years of when it was discovered.

10.   A limitation period begins on the first day that a person discovers a claim, meaning the first day that the person had knowledge of the matters in the claim or reasonably ought to have known about the claim.

11.   The applicant says that a six-year limitation period applies under the pre-June 2013 Limitation Act.

12.   The respondent says the applicable limitation period is 2 years from the last payment made on the account. He says the limitation period expired before the Dispute Notice was issued on August 2, 2018.

13.   I find that the claim was discovered before June 1, 2013, and so the old Limitation Act applies. The applicant’s claim must be brought within 6 years of when it was discovered.

14.   The question becomes whether the claim was discovered when the respondent made his last payment on the account, when the account was charged off, or at some other point.

15.   While in Contact Resource Services Inc. v. Wilson 2018 BCCRT 334 the tribunal refers to the charge-off date in considering the limitation period, it did so to show that the limitation period must have started under the pre-June 2013 Limitation Act. The decision did not provide a definitive analysis of whether the charge-off date triggers the limitation period, because it was not necessary on those facts.

16.   The charge off date is uncertain, on the applicant’s evidence. I was not provided with information about why two different charge off dates were given. In any event, I find the charge off date is a matter internal to the respondent or its predecessor. As such, regarding the limitation period, the charge-off date is arbitrary. It would be unprincipled to use this date to extend a limitation period, allowing the respondent to extend the limitation period by its own internal action.

17.   The date of last payment, on July 5, 2012, is the last time that the respondent acknowledged the debt. There is no evidence before me of a subsequent confirmation, in writing, of the debt, nor of any further payment.

18.   In Hunky Dory Sawmills v. Hassell, 2018 BCPC 68, at paragraph 116, the court found that the limitation period for a debt owing on a construction invoice would have run for 6 years after the date of last payment, had the claimant not acknowledged the debt again later.

19.   Following the above case, I find the limitation period started to run on July 5, 2012, the date of last payment. I find that the company that issued the credit would have known that a debt was owing to it at that point. I find that the limitation period expired on July 4, 2018, six years later.

20.   Since the Dispute Notice was issued on August 2, 2018, I find the dispute is out of time because it is statute-barred by the Limitation Act.

21.   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.

22.   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. [1]