Date Issued: January 6, 2020

File: SC-2019-004577

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Domjan v. Csicsmann, 2020 BCCRT 10

Between:

ROBERT DOMJAN

Applicant

And:

ILDIKO CSICSMANN

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about an unpaid invoice for car repairs and maintenance. The applicant, Robert Domjan, says the respondent, Ildiko Csicsmann, owes him $993.00. The respondent agrees with the amount owing but says she should pay in installments.

2.      The parties are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      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.

4.      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.

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.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUE

7.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent owes the applicant $993.00 for car repairs, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities. I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

9.      The key facts are undisputed. The applicant is a mechanic. In September 2018 the respondent brought her car to the applicant for repairs and maintenance. The respondent completed the work. He documented the repairs and billed the respondent in a September 18, 2018 work order.

10.   The work order shows the price was $1,793.00 before tax. It also shows that the respondent paid a $700.00 deposit. This left $1,093.00 owing. The respondent signed the work order when she picked her vehicle up.

11.   The work order was also reformatted into a November 19, 2018 invoice. They show the same price and deposit.

12.   At the end of November 2018, the respondent provided the applicant $100.00. She also attached a cover letter that proposed paying him the balance owing in $100.00 monthly installments. The applicant did not reply to the letter. The respondent did not provide any further payments.

13.   The parties agree that the respondent owes the applicant $993.00 for repairs. The applicant does not claim for any tax on this amount. I therefore find that the respondent owes the applicant $993.00.

14.   The respondent seeks to pay the applicant in $100 monthly installments. Although she does not dispute the amount owing, she says the applicant should have provided her more updates on the price of the work. She also alleges the applicant inspected and advised her to purchase the used car at issue. The car broke down shortly after she bought it. She says the respondent placed her in a bad situation.

15.   The respondent denies this and says he warned her against purchasing the car. He says he also advised at the time that any repairs would be “most likely expensive”.

16.   I find it unnecessary to determine which version of events is true. There is no submission or evidence that shows the parties agreed to a payment plan. The work order and invoice support the conclusion that the balance owing was immediately payable in a lump sum.

17.   The respondent says she is under financial stress as a result of other factors unrelated to this dispute. While I acknowledge with her situation, it is not relevant to the parties’ agreement.

18.   I find the appropriate order is an order for the full amount owing of $993.00 in debt. If the applicant wishes to accept a payment plan, he can choose to do so.

19.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the tribunal. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgement interest on the sum of $993.00 from September 18, 2018, the date of the work order, to the date of this decision. This equals $23.82.

20.   Under section 49 of the CRTA 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. I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $125.00 in tribunal fees. The parties did not claim dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

21.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $1,141.82, broken down as follows:

a.    $993.00 in debt,

b.    $23.82 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125.00 in tribunal fees.

22.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

23.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, 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.

24.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, 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.