Date Issued: December 3, 2020

File: SC-2020-005099

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: CTC Logistics (Canada) Inc. v. Wang, 2020 BCCRT 1371

Between:

CTC LOGISTICS (CANADA) INC.

Applicant

And:

AMY WANG and GATEWAY DOORS INC.

RespondentS

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about unpaid shipping invoices.

2.      The applicant, CTC Logistics (Canada) Inc. (CTC) says the respondent, Amy Wang, hired CTC to arrange international shipping. CTC says Ms. Wang and her company, Gateway Doors Inc. (Gateway), have failed to pay CTC’s outstanding invoices and claims $3,721.25. CTC is represented by an employee or owner.

3.      Ms. Wang says Gateway is not involved in the dispute and that CTC named the wrong company. She asks that the dispute be dismissed.

4.      Gateway did not file a Dispute Response. However, as explain below, I find Ms. Wang represents both herself and Gateway.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

6.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

7.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT 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 CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

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

9.      As a preliminary matter, I note that the CRT dispute records show that Ms. Wang filed a Dispute Response, but Gateway did not. Generally, when a party fails to file a Dispute Response, it will technically be in default and assumed to be liable for the actions alleged by the applicant. However, in this case, I find that Ms. Wang’s Dispute Response was intended for both herself and Gateway, as she proposed arguments on Gateway’s behalf. Based on Mrs. Wang’s email address and signature block in her emails I find she is likely an employee of Gateway. On balance, and bearing in mind the CRT’s flexible mandate, I find Gateway is not in default.

ISSUE

10.   The issue in this dispute is to whether either respondent must pay CTC’s outstanding invoices and, if so, how much?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil claim such as this one the applicant, CTC, must prove its claim on a balance of probabilities. I note that the respondents did not provide any submissions although were given the opportunity to do so. I have reviewed the parties’ evidence and CTC’s submissions, but only refer to that needed to explain my decision.

12.   Based on the parties’ documents, I find:

a.    Ms. Wang asked CTC to arrange a shipment from China on June 10, 2019,

b.    The shipment left China on June 27, 2019 and arrive in B.C. on July 29, 2019, where it underwent inspection,

c.    On July 29, 2019 CTC charged a total of $4,717.86 to Company X for the shipping services, which included $2,703.70 inspection costs from a third-party ocean shipper. The invoice was addressed to Ms. Wang’s attention at Company X.

d.    On January 6, 2020 CTC shipped 2 crates of goods from a Washington state door company to Company Q in BC.

e.    CTC’s January 13, 2020 invoice for $1,017.50 was sent to Company Q, to Ms. Wang’s attention. Gateway is identified in the customer reference field.

f.     Ms. Wang asked CTC to arrange for shipment of a second order from the same Washington door company on January 21, 2020.

13.   CTC says Ms. Wang ordered the shipping services set out in both invoices. Based on Ms. Wang’s emails to CTC, I agree. I find Ms. Wang did not ask CTC to arrange for the January 6, 2020 shipment in her January 21, 2020 email, given that the email came after the shipment and the weight of the packages in the email and invoice are different. However, as the January 21, 2020 email was for a second order from the same company, I find it more likely than not that Ms. Wang asked CTC to ship both the first and second orders. So, I find Ms. Wang entered asked CTC to arrange for these shipping services.

14.   CTC says Ms. Wang or “her company” have always paid CTC’s invoices. CTC did not provide any evidence of past payments made. However, in text messages between Ms. Wang and CTC’s principal on December 29, 2019, Ms. Wang said “we” already paid demurrage fees in the July 29, 2019 invoices and asked questions about the ocean shipper’s inspection costs. Given that she paid part of the costs, and asked CTC to provide the shipping services, I find it likely that Ms. Wang had previously agreed to pay CTC for the shipping services she ordered. I also find it likely Ms. Wang agreed to pay CTC for the January 2020 door company shipments as well.

15.   I now turn to consider whether Ms. Wang entered into that agreement and ordered the shipping services as agent for Gateway or Company X or Q.

16.   The law of agency applies when one party (the principal) gives authority to another party (the agent) to enter into contracts with third parties on the principal’s behalf. So long as the agent discloses that they are acting as an agent for the principal, the agent will not generally be responsible for the contract they make between the principal and third party. In other words, Ms. Wang will not be personally responsible for CTC’s invoices, if she was making the agreement for Gateway or the other companies.

17.   Ms. Wang’s emails are sent from a Gateway email address and her signature block includes the Gateway company name and address without any indication of Ms. Wang’s title or position with Gateway. Ms. Wang argues that Gateway has nothing to do with these outstanding invoices and CTC has not provided any contrary evidence, such as any agreement with Gateway or proof of payment from Gateway. I find Gateway’s identification as the customer reference number on the January 13, 2020 invoice, without further explanation, is insufficient to hold Gateway responsible for paying the invoice, given that Gateway appears not to have benefitted from the shipping services and the invoices are addressed to different companies.

18.   On balance, I find CTC has failed to prove that Gateway is involved in these transactions, or that Ms. Wang arranged for the shipments as agent for Gateway. I dismiss CTC’s claims against Gateway.

19.   Neither party argues that Ms. Wang arranged for the shipping services on behalf of either Company X or Company Q. Other than the invoices being directed to her attention at both Company X and Company Q’s addresses, there is no other evidence indicating Ms. Wang may have been acting as agent for either of those companies. On balance, I find Ms. Wang was not acting as agent for either Company X or Q.

20.   As Ms. Wang was not acting as agent for Gateway, Company X, or Company Q, and as I find she had agreed to pay CTC for the shipping services she requested, I find she is personally responsible for paying CTC’s invoices.

21.   In her Dispute Response Ms. Wang said that all outstanding fees have been paid except the $2,703.70 inspection fee. She did not explain why the inspection fee was not paid. Based on the third-party ocean shipper’s invoice to CTC and CTC’s submissions, I find CTC incurred the $2,703.70 cost for the inspection fee and included that cost in its July 29, 2019 invoice. I find CTC is entitled to reimbursement of that cost. Ms. Wang did not provide any evidence showing that CTC’s January 13, 2020 invoice had already been paid. I find both balances remain outstanding and that Ms. Wang is responsible for paying them. I order Ms. Wang to pay CTC $3,721.25.

22.   In its submissions CTC pointed out that its invoices indicate a 1.5% interest rate, per month, on late payments. There is no evidence that the parties agreed to a contractual rate of interest. A right to charge interest cannot be unilaterally imposed in an invoice (see N.B.C Mechanical Inc. v. A.H. Lundberg Equipment Ltd., 1999 BCCA 775). I find CTC has failed to prove it is entitled to contractual interest on its invoices.

23.   However, in the absence of an agreement about interest, the Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. I find CTC is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,703.70 debt from the date of the July 29, 2019 invoice to the date of this decision and on the $1,017.50 debt from the date of the January 13, 2020 invoice to the date of this decision. The interest on both invoices equals $65.22

24.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I find CTC is entitled to reimbursement of $175 in CRT fees. There is no claim for dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

25.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order Ms. Wang to pay CTC a total of $3,961.42, broken down as follows:

a.    $3,721.25 in debt,

b.    $65.22 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $175 in CRT fees.

26.   CTC is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

27.   I dismiss CTC’s claims against Gateway.

28.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, the CRT 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 CRT’s final decision. The Province of British Columbia has enacted a provision under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act which says that statutory decision makers, like the CRT, may waive, extend or suspend mandatory time periods. This provision is expected to be in effect until 90 days after the state of emergency declared on March 18, 2020 ends, but the Province may shorten or extend the 90-day timeline at any time. A party should contact the CRT as soon as possible if they want to ask the CRT to consider waiving, suspending or extending the mandatory time to file a Notice of Objection to a small claims dispute.

29.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. A CRT 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 CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.