Date Issued: January 18, 2021

File: SC-2020-006530

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Lynch v. Shireen Investments Inc. dba Michael St. Clair Fine Cleaners, 2021 BCCRT 62

Between:

WILLIAM LYNCH

Applicant

And:

SHIREEN INVESTMENTS INC. DBA
MICHAEL ST. CLAIR FINE CLEANERS

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about dry cleaning services. The applicant, William Lynch, says that the respondent, Shireen Investments Inc. dba Michael St. Clair Fine Cleaners (Shireen), did not return some of his clothing despite charging his credit card for service in February 2020. He also says that Shireen charged an additional amount to his credit card in July 2020 that was not associated with any service. He asks for an order that Shireen reimburse him a total of $1,866.53 for the lost clothing, reimbursement of credit card charges, and his time spent trying to resolve the matter. Shireen denies that it is responsible for the damages claimed by Mr. Lynch.

2.      Mr. Lynch is self-represented. Shireen is represented by an employee.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      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). 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 parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

4.      The CRT 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 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.

6.      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.

ISSUE

7.      The issue in this dispute is whether Shireen is responsible for the $1,866.53 in damages claimed by Mr. Lynch.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      In a civil dispute like this, an applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. Both parties provided evidence and submissions in support of their respective positions. While I have considered all of this information, I will refer to only what is necessary to provide context to my decision.

9.      Mr. Lynch says that he had an arrangement with Shireen where it would pick up his laundry and dry cleaning, charge the service to his credit card, and return the items to him.

10.   According to Mr. Lynch, Shireen picked up 1 suit and 6 shirts around February 15, 2020 and charged $73.00 to his credit card. Mr. Lynch says that Shireen did not return the clothing. Mr. Lynch says that Shireen made another charge of $93.53 to his credit card in July of 2020. He suggests that this charge was “fraudulent” as it was not associated with any service. Mr. Lynch states that he telephoned Shireen several times and was told that someone would look into the matter, but he never received a call back.

11.   Mr. Lynch claims $1,200 as compensation for the lost clothing, $73.00 as reimbursement for the February dry cleaning charge, $93.53 for the July credit card charge, and $500 for time he spent calling Shireen to resolve the matter.

12.   Shireen admits that it has performed laundry and dry cleaning services for Mr. Lynch. However, it says that it does not have a record of any orders for Mr. Lynch after December 12, 2019. It also says that it stopped operating in February of 2020 and that it did not have Mr. Lynch’s credit card information to make a charge in July of 2020.

13.   As noted above, Mr. Lynch bears the burden of proof. This means that he must provide evidence to prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. While I accept that the parties had an agreement for dry cleaning and laundry services, I find that Mr. Lynch has not proven all of his claims.

14.   Mr. Lynch did not provide evidence to establish the amount of the credit card charge for service in February of 2020, the contents of that order, or the value of the contents. He states in the Dispute Notice that the order contained 1 suit and 6 shirts, but says in his submissions that he may have underestimated the contents of the order. Although he suggests that the contents of the order could be “reverse engineered” from Shireen’s price list, I find that this is not determinative. Further, the evidence before me does not support the conclusion that the contents of the order, whatever they were, are valued at the $1,200 he claims. Whether or not Shireen was operating in February of 2020, I find that Mr. Lynch has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that he was charged $73.00 for service he did not receive and experienced a loss of $1,200 in clothing.

15.   In addition, I find that Mr. Lynch has not proven that the time he spent on the telephone with Shireen’s employees is valued at $500. Further, the CRT generally does not award compensation for time spent on a dispute, which is consistent with its rules against awarding reimbursement of legal fees except in extraordinary cases. Accordingly, I dismiss these claims.

16.   My conclusion about the July 2020 credit card charge is different. Shireen admits that it did not provide any service to Mr. Lynch in July of 2020. Although Shireen says that it was “impossible” for it to charge Mr. Lynch’s credit card as it had closed his account, his credit card statement shows a charge from “Michael St. Clair Fine Vancouver BC” on July 15, 2020 for $93.53. Shireen did not dispute that this is its operating name, or explain how such a charge could have occurred.

17.   I find that Shireen made a charge to Mr. Lynch’s credit card that was not associated with any agreed-upon service. Accordingly, Mr. Lynch is entitled to reimbursement for the $93.53 charge.

18.   I also find that Mr. Lynch is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act. Calculated from July 17, 2020 (being the date the charge was posted to Mr. Lynch’s credit card account), this equals $0.21.

19.   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. As Mr. Lynch was partially successful, I find that he is entitled to reimbursement of half of the $150 he paid in CRT fees, or $75. Mr. Lynch did not claim dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

20.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order Shireen to pay Mr. Lynch a total of $168.74, broken down as follows:

a.    $93.53 in debt as reimbursement for the July 2020 credit card charge,

b.    $0.21 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $75 for reimbursement of CRT fees.

21.   Mr. Lynch is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

22.   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.

23.   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.