Date Issued: May 31, 2019

File: SC-2018-03387

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bains v. Signature Automotive Group Ltd, dba Signature Mazda

2019 BCCRT 668

Between:

Avtar Bains

Applicant

And:

Signature Automotive Group, doing business as Signature Mazda

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Avtar Bains, leased a vehicle in 2013 from the respondent, Signature Automotive Group, doing business as Signature Mazda. In 2017, the applicant was in the process of buying out his vehicle, which involved the car being inspected by a third party for end of term leases. The inspection revealed that the passenger side door had been repainted.

2.      The applicant states that the respondent failed to advise him that the vehicle had sustained prior damage. The applicant requests an explanation for the way he was treated by the respondent, an order that the respondent treat him honestly, an apology, and $5,000.00 as a settlement for the damaged car.

3.      The respondent states that it did not know about the minor repair to the car which was performed by Mazda Canada before it received the vehicle. It also submits that the law does not require a motor dealer to disclose minor damages.

4.      The applicant is self-represented. The respondent is represented by Marko Joannou, their business contact.

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. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions because I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

7.      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.

8.      Under tribunal rule 9.3(2), 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

9.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Whether the respondent was aware that the vehicle leased and then sold to the applicant had prior damage.

b.    If the respondent was aware, whether it was obligated to disclose this information to the applicant.

c.    If the respondent improperly failed to disclose known damage to the applicant, what is the appropriate remedy.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.    The original 2013 lease agreement and the end-of-lease inspection report are not before me. In 2017, the applicant bought the car. The evidence begins with emails between Mazda Canada and the applicant in January 2018 in which the applicant stated that the respondent referred to an Insurance Corporation of BC (ICBC) report, which I infer showed no prior accidents, and refused to assist the applicant. The applicant stated that the respondent indicated that it did not know what happened to vehicles before they ended up on their lot.

11.   The applicant began to lease the car in 2013. Although the applicant states that the 2017 end of lease inspection revealed that the passenger door was repainted, I note the invoice supplied by Mazda Canada shows that on April 19, 2013 minor work was done on the right bumper with the majority of the $604.57 related to painting work and supplies.

12.   The emails from Mazda Canada are from a customer relations technical specialist who stated that the vehicle was a demo press car before it was leased to the applicant, and the right front fender was repainted due to some damage during shipment. Mazda Canada’s representative at that point suggested that before receiving the vehicle the dealership would have been aware of the damages as they would receive it for a lesser amount.

13.   The representative also stated that the damages should have been disclosed to the applicant prior to purchase. However, the representative notes that the damage to the rim which the applicant was complaining about was not the focus of the repair.

14.   The applicant indicated in an email he sent on January 1, 2018, that there was damage to the rim and remarked upon the lower skirt buckling. He suggested that it was suspicious that he had to pay money for issues on the right side of the car and that this was the same area compromised in what he referred to as the original accident.

15.   The applicant began this dispute in May 2018. He also registered a complaint with the Vehicle Sales Authority of British Columbia (VSA) around the same time. Given the issue before me in this dispute, I will not address issues raised by the VSA as those are not relevant, and neither party particularly addressed them.

16.   I note that the VSA investigator stated in an email that the respondent indicated that the applicant received a discount at the onset of his lease as a result of the repair. The applicant submits that it makes no sense for the respondent to say he was not aware of the repair and also say that he gave the applicant a discount because of it.

17.   Although I acknowledge that the evidence appears contradictory, I rely more on the respondent’s consistent denial that he did not know about the damage rather than a hearsay remark in the context of a VSA email. The applicant did not provide any proof that the respondent had stated the applicant received a discount because of the repair.

18.   My finding on this matter is further supported by the fact that Mazda Canada wrote to the VSA after its May 23, 2018 request for documents that the repair occurred on April 17, 2013 while the vehicle was owned by Mazda Canada and prior to its sale to the respondent on July 31, 2013.

19.   Mazda Canada explained that the cost was minor, $604.57 after tax which falls under the $2,000.00 threshold for disclosure stated in section 23(b)(ii) of the Motor Dealer Act Regulation. Mazda Canada also stated that given the immateriality of the damage neither the occurrence of the repair nor the repair invoice was expressly communicated to the respondent during the vehicle transaction between them

20.   Mazda Canada was of the opinion that based on this information it disagreed that the respondent was aware of previous damage or repairs to the vehicle.

21.    Based on a review of all of the evidence, I find that the applicant has not proven that the respondent was aware of the minor damage to the applicant’s vehicle before it leased to him.

22.   Further, even if I am incorrect in this finding and the respondent was aware of the damage, under section 23(b)(ii) of the Motor Dealer Act Regulation a dealer is obligated to disclose damage requiring repairs costing more than 20% of the asking price of a new vehicle or damages requiring repairs costing more than $2,000.00 in the case of a used vehicle. The invoice indicates that the repair was minor and cost $604.57. I find that even if the respondent was aware of this damage, he was not obliged to disclose it to the applicant. Therefore, I dismiss this claim.

23.   Even if I had found the respondent liable, I would not have ordered the remedies requested. The applicant has not explained why $5,000.00 is an appropriate award, and I do not find it is. Forced apologies are not productive or helpful and I would not have ordered one, quite apart from the fact that the tribunal does not have the power to order injunctive relief. I say the same about the request that the respondent treat the applicant honestly, though as noted above I find it has done so.

24.   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. As the applicant was unsuccessful in his claim he is not entitled to have his tribunal fees reimbursed.

ORDERS

25.   I dismiss the applicant’s claim and his dispute.