Date Issued: December 10, 2020

File: SC-2020-005046

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Service v. Blinkhorn, 2020 BCCRT 1402

Between:

JUSTIN OWEN SERVICE

Applicant

And:

JUSTIN BLINKHORN

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Justin Owen Service, alleges that the respondent, Justin Blinkhorn, borrowed his vehicle and was then involved in a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Service claims $2,351.76 for a new bumper and paint, plus $1,898 for accelerated depreciation. Accelerated depreciation means a loss in a vehicle’s value beyond its natural depreciation. Mr. Service also claims $750 for alleged “loss of use/rental car coverage”.

2.      Mr. Blinkhorn agrees that he was in an accident in Mr. Service’s vehicle but denies that Mr. Service sustained a loss. Mr. Blinkhorn says Mr. Service was his employer and he had no right to bring this claim against him for the vehicle damage.

3.      The parties were each self-represented during the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) process.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the CRT’s formal written reasons. 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.

5.      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 fairly and properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence before me without an oral hearing. Bearing in mind Mr. Service’s decision not to participate further in the process and the CRT’s mandate for proportionality, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      In the Dispute Response, Mr. Blinkhorn said this dispute is too complicated for the CRT and should be transferred to the Human Rights Tribunal instead. I disagree. I find Mr. Simple’s negligence or breach of contract claims are simple and do not involve the Human Rights Code. I find this dispute falls within the CRT’s small claims authority. I find it is appropriate that the CRT decide this dispute.

ISSUES

9.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did Mr. Service suffer any loss from the alleged motor vehicle accident?

b.    If so, to what extent if any, must Mr. Blinkhorn reimburse Mr. Service for the claimed damages?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Service must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. However, despite bringing these claims against Mr. Blinkhorn, Mr. Service chose not to submit any evidence or arguments to support them.

11.   There is no dispute that Mr. Blinkhorn was in a motor vehicle accident in March 2020 in Mr. Service’s vehicle. The accident details are not before me.

12.   In the Dispute Notice, Mr. Service stated that Mr. Blinkhorn refused to make a claim with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), and instead, offered to pay for the vehicle damage himself, but then did not pay. Mr. Service also alleged that Mr. Blinkhorn attempted to involve him in insurance fraud, which Mr. Blinkhorn disputes, and I find is unproven.

13.   Based on the ICBC estimates in evidence, I find Mr. Service likely made a claim under his ICBC insurance. The ICBC repair estimate states that the vehicle’s total repair cost was $1,423.83. The estimate states that the “customer” (Mr. Service) had “0.00” responsibility and the ICBC insurance deductible was waived. There is no evidence showing that Mr. Service paid anything additional to repair his vehicle. Without evidence to the contrary and on the documentation before me, I find the cost of the vehicle repairs was fully covered by ICBC. Leaving the liability issue aside, I find Mr. Service has not proven that he suffered a loss to repair the vehicle. So, I dismiss Mr. Service’s $2,351.76 claims for a new bumper and paint.

14.   As for the alleged loss of use, Mr. Service provided no details of how long his vehicle was repaired or evidence such as a rental receipt or taxi invoice, to show that he incurred a cost for alternative transportation. I dismiss Mr. Service’s $750 loss of use or “rental car coverage” claim as unproven.

15.   Next, Mr. Service provided no information or documents to support his accelerated depreciation claim. Accelerated depreciation cannot be assumed on the mere fact that the vehicle was in the accident and required some repairs (see Miles v. Mendoza, 1994 CanLII 419, BCSC).

16.   Considering Mr. Service’s ICBC insurance covered the repairs, I find the accident related damage was likely repaired in full. There is no evidence that it was not. Without supporting evidence, I find that Mr. Service has not proven that his vehicle suffered any accelerated depreciation due to the accident. I dismiss Mr. Service’s $1,898 accelerated depreciation claim.

17.   In summary, I dismiss Mr. Service’s claims.

18.   As Mr. Blinkhorn did not file a counterclaim, I have not discussed the employment related issues that Mr. Blinkhorn raised in the Dispute Response. I find these issues are not properly before me.

19.   The parties did not pay CRT fees and neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

20.   I dismiss Mr. Service’s claims and this dispute.