Date Issued: April 4, 2019

File: SC-2018-004542

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: lyde v. Braithwaite -States, 2019 BCCRT 424

Between:

robert lyde

Applicant

And:

phyllis Adelyne Braithwaite -States

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about whether money given was a loan or a gift.

2.      The applicant Robert Lyde says the respondent Phyllis Adelyne Braithwaite-States^[1] borrowed $1,000 from him and failed to repay it. He claims $1,000.

3.      The respondent says the money was a gift. She asks that the dispute be dismissed.

4.      The parties are each self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal 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.

6.      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.

7.      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 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 decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

8.      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.

9.      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.

ISSUE

10.   The issue in this dispute is whether the applicant lent $1,000 to the respondent, or whether the money was a gift.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   This is a civil claim in which the applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. I have reviewed all of the evidence and submissions but refer to them here only as necessary to explain my decision.

12.   In June 2017, the applicant gave the respondent $1,000. The parties agree that the money was intended to help the applicant with plane fare expenses she incurred travelling to visit her mother, who was ill. At the time, the parties had been longtime friends who were becoming closer.

13.   The parties disagree about whether the $1,000 was a loan or a gift.

14.   A determination of whether the funds were given as a loan or a gift depends on the unique facts of each case. While I am not bound by previous decisions, I have found the decisions in Bal v. Suri et al, 2018 BCCRT 50 and MacNeil v. Aisling, 2018 BCCRT 672 helpful.

15.   For an agreement or contract to exist, there must be a ‘meeting of the minds’ about the contract’s subject matter. One party’s belief that there is a contract, alone, is not enough.

16.   Here, on consideration of the submissions and evidence, I find the applicant has not met the onus of establishing there was an agreement that the money claimed was provided as loan the respondent would be legally required to pay back.

17.   Specifically, the applicant provided a banking document showing the $1,000 was transferred to the respondent, which is undisputed.

18.   The respondent says she was in a close relationship with the applicant at the time, which has since deteriorated.

19.   The other documentary evidence is a handwritten, undated note from the applicant to the respondent, where the applicant asks for repayment. In it, the applicant accuses the respondent of stealing the money, and of misleading him into providing the money to her. I find that, based on the content of this note, it was written sometime after the parties’ relationship ended.

20.   I find that there is no documentary evidence, current with the timing of the transfer, showing that the money was understood to be a loan.

21.   The respondent says, by contrast, that the money was a gift to help her out with plane fare.

22.   Based on the evidence as a whole, I find it falls short of proving a legally enforceable loan agreement. I find the applicant has not met the required onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the money claimed was provided as a loan to the respondent. I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

23.   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. As the successful respondent paid no tribunal fees, I make no order in this regard.

ORDER

24.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.