Date Issued: August 26, 2019

File: SC-2019-001287

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Aheer Transportation Ltd. v. Nain, 2019 BCCRT 1014

Between:

AHEER TRANSPORTATION LTD.

Applicant

And:

BALJIT NAIN

RespondentS

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about contractual notice by an owner/operator truck driver. The applicant, Aheer Transportation Ltd., says the respondent driver, Baljit Nain, owes $2,500 under his contract, for failing to provide 30 days’ notice of termination of the contract.

2.      In his Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding, the respondent said he was never made aware of the notice provision and that the applicant never mentioned it when he emailed his resignation to them. The respondent said had he known about the notice provision, he would have given 30 days’ notice. The respondent did not provide evidence or submissions, despite being given the opportunity to do so.

3.      The applicant is represented by Coleman Tokei, who I infer is a principal or employee. The respondent is self-represented.

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 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). 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.

5.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In the circumstances here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary 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.

6.      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.

7.      Under tribunal rule 9.3(2), in resolving this dispute the tribunal may do one or more of the following where permitted under section 118 of the CRTA: 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.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent truck driver breached the notice provision in the parties’ contract, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities. Although I have reviewed all of the parties’ evidence and submissions, I have only referenced what I find necessary to give context to my decision.

10.   As noted, other than his filed Dispute Response the respondent chose not to provide any evidence or submissions. The applicant provided only the parties’ June 7, 2017 contract as evidence in support of their claim. The respondent signed the contract and initialed each page.

11.   Clause 12 of the contract is titled ‘Term’. The clause stated there is a 90 day probationary period, during which either party can terminate the agreement. After the probationary period, the contract says it continues and the agreement may be terminated by either party giving the other 30 days’ written notice. The contract states it is effective on the date signed, which as noted was June 7, 2017. So, the respondent’s probationary period ended on September 5, 2017.

12.   The difficulty for the applicant is that it did not say when the respondent gave notice he was terminating the contract. Other than a copy of the signed contract, it provided no evidence. I have no evidence before me as to whether the termination was within the probationary period or not. I have no evidence as to the amount of notice actually given, though I note the respondent acknowledges in his Dispute Response that he did not give 30 days’ notice.

13.   There is insufficient evidence before me that the respondent was required to give 30 days’ notice and failed to do so. On balance, I find the applicant has not proved its claim that the respondent owes $2,500 under the contract. Given this conclusion, I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

ORDER

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