Date Issued: December 11, 2019

File: SC-2019-006002

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bak v. Zhang, 2019 BCCRT 1395

Between:

JASON KENNETH BAK

Applicant

And:

XUE YAN ZHANG

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about mail the applicant, Jason Kenneth Bak, says the respondent, Xue Yan Zhang, failed to deliver to him. The applicant rented a mailbox from the respondent and some of his mail from Service Canada and Revenue Canada was not delivered to him for 2 months. The respondent admits this, but says Canada Post in error put the mail in her store’s newspaper box, which was not being monitored at the time, rather than delivering it inside the store as was Canada Post’s normal practice.

2.      The applicant claims $2,400 for alleged mental and physical suffering due to the delayed mail. The respondent denies liability.

3.      The parties are each 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 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.

6.      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 of this dispute, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the 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.

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 breached the parties’ mailbox contract or was negligent in handling the applicant’s mail delivery, 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 his claims on a balance of probabilities. Although I have reviewed all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I have only referenced what I find necessary to give context to my decision.

10.   The respondent operates a store and rents out mailboxes. Based on the parties’ mailbox contract in evidence, the applicant started renting a mailbox on January 13, 2019, for a 12-month term.

11.   The applicant says that on June 15, 2019 the respondent handed him 17 letters, which included mail from Revenue Canada and Service Canada. I infer the applicant was waiting for cheques that were in those letters, as elsewhere he submits that he had contacted those agencies about payment and had been told it had been sent.

12.   As noted above, the respondent does not deny giving the applicant a stack of his mail later than it was originally delivered to her store. Her position is that Canada Post misdelivered the mail into her exterior newspaper box, which was not monitored often during that time, and so she is not to blame.

13.   The respondent provided a photo of a stack of numbered lockable mailboxes, one of which I infer was the applicant’s rented box. The photo indicates these boxes are inside the store, and that on receipt the respondent would deposit mail into the individual boxes. As noted above, the respondent says that Canada Post’s usual practice would be to deliver mail for the boxes to staff inside the store, or, to slide it in under the door.

14.   The respondent also provided a photo of its newspaper box that is located outside her store. It has a large label on it “The Box Just For Newspaper!” (quote reproduced as written). The respondent says that despite this label, for reasons unknown Canada Post delivered mail to that mailbox for the 2-month period in question.

15.   I find the evidence does not show the respondent breached the parties’ contract for mailbox rental. There is no evidence before me, or even a submission, that the respondent intentionally withheld the applicant’s mail. Rather, the applicant says he contacted the respondent and she said she had not received any mail for him, and that she would contact him when mail arrived. I find there would be no reason for the respondent to be aware the applicant’s mail had been delivered but not tell him about it. I accept the mail was misdelivered to the respondent’s exterior newspaper box. While not entirely clear, the applicant’s submission appears to indicate he was present when the respondent discovered his mail in her exterior newspaper box.

16.   There is no evidence before me that the respondent knew the mail was in her exterior newspaper box during the 2-month period in question. The parties’ contract was for rental of a mailbox and the respondent fulfilled her part of that contract.

17.   Turning to negligence, I accept the respondent owed the applicant customer a duty of care. However, I find the evidence does not show the standard of care was to frequently monitor the exterior newspaper box in the event mail was accidentally delivered there. I find the applicant has not proved the respondent is responsible for his receiving his mail late.

18.   Even if I had found the respondent responsible, I would not have allowed the $2,400 damages as claimed. Apart from a submission that he was negatively impacted by his delayed receipt of certain funds, the applicant provided no evidence to support this $2,400 claim or how he arrived at that figure. Given my conclusions above, I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

19.   The applicant does not claim reimbursement of tribunal fees or dispute-related expenses, and so I make no order about them.

ORDER

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