Date Issued: February 21, 2020

File: SC-2019-008233

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Poulette v. Gerard Cohen-Tanugi (dba Mac’s Auto Electric),
2020 BCCRT 206

Between:

DAMIEN CROAIN POULETTE

Applicant

And:

GERARD COHEN-TANUGI (Doing Business As MAC’S AUTO ELECTRIC)

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Damien Croain Poulette, says the respondent, Gerard Cohen-Tanugi (Doing Business As Mac’s Auto Electric), provided faulty repairs to his 2006 Nissan Quest vehicle. The applicant claims $1,500, which he says is the cost of broken parts, an “excess labor charge”, and his time spent on the dispute. However, I note the applicant’s calculation summary totals only $840.

2.      The respondent says the vehicle was heavily corroded and that he warned the applicant before work began that parts could break, and the applicant agreed the respondent should proceed. Otherwise, the respondent says he is not responsible for the applicant’s claimed expenses.

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 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.

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.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may: 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 diagnosed and/or repaired the applicant’s vehicle improperly, and if so, what are the appropriate remedies.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant must prove his claim, on a balance of probabilities. I have only referenced the evidence and submissions as necessary to give context to my decision.

10.   On September 3, 2019 the applicant brought his vehicle to the respondent for a new alternator. The applicant says the respondent quoted $375.80 plus tax as a fixed price. However, on September 7, 2019, the respondent charged the applicant $631.18, which included a rebuilt alternator, antifreeze, and $200 for a replacement radiator for one that broke during the respondent’s service.

11.   The respondent says to service the alternator he needed to remove the radiator, which broke because the bolts were so corroded. In the course of the vehicle’s repair, various expenses were incurred, as discussed below.

Replacement radiator and fluid - $200

12.   The applicant claims a $200 refund for the replacement radiator and fluid, which was the amount the respondent paid for the part and fluid and charged back to the applicant. The respondent did not charge the applicant for labour to install the replacement radiator.

13.   The applicant does not deny his vehicle was corroded. However, contrary to the respondent’s submission, the applicant says he was never informed of any breakage risks due to corrosion, and denies he ever accepted the burden of associated costs.

14.   On balance, I find it more likely that the respondent did warn the applicant about possible breakage. The respondent provided a statement from a mobile mechanic it initially contacted to do the after-hours alternator replacement. That mechanic, AM, said because of the vehicle’s corrosion, and the fact that the radiator would need to be removed in order to gain access to the alternator, he refused the job. I accept that in order to replace the alternator, the respondent would need to first remove the radiator, which is undisputed. I also accept that the applicant’s vehicle was significantly corroded and that this made the radiator’s removal problematic, which is also undisputed. I find the fact that AM refused the job and the respondent had to find another mechanic to do it supports the conclusion that he warned the applicant about the corrosion problems identified by AM.

15.   More generally, the respondent denies there was any fault with its replacement radiator installation. It is generally necessary for the applicant to prove a breach of the applicable standard of care with expert evidence (see Bergen v. Guliker, 2015 BCCA 283). This is because the standards of a particular industry are often outside of the knowledge or expertise of an ordinary person. I find that in this dispute, I would require expert evidence to prove that the respondent’s work fell below the standard of a reasonably competent mechanic. There is no such evidence before me. I find the applicant has not shown the respondent could have removed the radiator without breaking it.

16.   Ultimately, I find the applicant has failed to show the respondent should pay for the replacement radiator and fluid. The applicant wanted a new alternator and the undisputed evidence before me was that the only way to install one was to remove the radiator. I find the respondent cannot be held responsible for the applicant’s corroded vehicle that was the cause of the radiator breaking. I dismiss this $200 claim.

Grounding diagnosis - $70 and $30 expenses paid to third parties

17.   The applicant says that the respondent misdiagnosed a “grounding” problem that arose after the respondent installed a new radiator. The respondent diagnosed an “intermittent bad ground”, which was confirmed when its mechanic grounded the engine and the alternator charging system worked properly. The applicant’s issue appears to be not with the diagnosis, but the respondent’s initial proposed solution to fix it.

18.   After the respondent’s diagnosis, the applicant had his vehicle assessed by a different mechanic, for which the applicant paid $70 for his time. Apparently, that mechanic could not resolve the problem. The applicant seeks reimbursement of this $70. While the applicant admits it was a grounding problem as alleged by the respondent, the applicant says the respondent’s incorrect solution is what led him to incur the $70 expense. I note there is no receipt for this $70 or any document before me critical of the respondent’s diagnosis.

19.   As the problem was not resolved, the applicant then took his vehicle to another third party mechanic, who charged a total of $100 plus tax and fixed the problem. The respondent paid $70 of that $100 as a goodwill gesture, and the applicant claims reimbursement of the $30 he paid.

20.   In short, the applicant claims a total of $100 ($70 + $30) for solving a grounding problem, which was separate from the alternator replacement issue. The respondent points to the final mechanic’s invoice that says, “grounding cable repair because of extreme corrosion”. There is no evidence before me that the respondent caused the grounding problem, and instead the evidence indicates it resulted from extreme corrosion. The grounding problem was ultimately fixed for $100, and that is the total amount the applicant paid. In any event, similar to the issue above, in order to find the respondent negligent I require an expert opinion from a mechanic. As there is no such opinion critical of the respondent’s diagnosis or proposed solutions, I dismiss these claims totaling $100.

Tip to the respondent’s employee - $40

21.   The applicant claims reimbursement of the $40 cash tip he gave directly to the respondent’s employee. It is undisputed that the respondent suggested the applicant consider a $20 tip, given the respondent’s employee worked on the applicant’s corroded car for 8 or 9 hours, instead of 2 hours which would ordinarily be expected. I find since it is undisputed the applicant voluntarily gave the $40 as a gratuity or tip to the respondent’s employee personally, I find the respondent is not responsible to reimburse the applicant for it. I dismiss this aspect of the applicant’s claim.

Battery - $200

22.   The respondent admits it initially misplaced the applicant’s existing battery that he had bought in January 2019. It is undisputed the respondent replaced the battery and did not charge the applicant for the replacement, which the respondent provided with a warranty.

23.   The applicant acknowledges that the respondent retrieved his original battery and offered it back to him. However, the applicant says he refused that offer because he relied on the respondent’s assurance that the replacement battery was better than his original one. However, the applicant says he later discovered the replacement battery was not as good, and claims $200, which is what he paid for his original battery.

24.   The applicant says he started having problems with the respondent’s battery 2 weeks after it was installed. He says he went to a third party to have his battery tested twice, and submitted two printouts showing readings of 460CCA and 475CCA with a “rating” of 600CCA. Contrary to the applicant’s submission, I cannot determine from these printouts that the battery is defective simply because the measurements are lower than a “rating” figure.

25.   Further, the applicant says that despite the replacement battery being under warranty, he no longer trusts the respondent’s product quality or services. In all the circumstances and given my conclusions above, I find this position is unreasonable. I note the respondent says the warranty is valid across Canada, so the applicant does not have to return to the respondent. Plus, it would be double recovery for the applicant to receive $200 reimbursement and keep the replacement battery. For all the above reasons, I dismiss this $200 battery claim.

Time spent - $300

26.   The applicant claims $300, or an amount the tribunal considers reasonable, for his time spent dealing with all the “inconveniences” and many trips to repair shops he had to take, and not having his vehicle for many days. The applicant provided no supporting documentation of any costs associated with loss of use of his vehicle. In any event, I have found the respondent is not responsible for the applicant’s other claims above. Plus, except in extraordinary cases, the tribunal generally does not award compensation for a party’s inconveniences and associated time spent. I find that there is nothing extraordinary about this dispute that would justify deviating from this general rule. I dismiss this $300 claim.

27.   In summary, I have dismissed all of the applicant’s claims. So, under the CRTA and the tribunal’s rules, I find as the unsuccessful party he is not entitled to reimbursement of tribunal fees. No dispute-related expenses were claimed.

ORDER

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