Date Issued: January 21, 2021

File: SC-2020-007487

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Stanlow dba ArborGreen Tree Care Specialists v. Mitchell’s Towing Ltd., 2021 BCCRT 74

BETWEEN:

DYLAN STANLOW (Doing Business As ARBORGREEN TREE CARE SPECIALISTS)

APPLICANT

AND:

MITCHELL’S TOWING LTD.

RESPONDENT

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about alleged damage to a commercial vehicle. The applicant, Dylan Stanlow (doing business as ArborGreen Tree Care Specialists), says the respondent, Mitchell’s Towing Ltd. (Mitchell), damaged the steering box of his work truck when it towed the vehicle. Mr. Stanlow seeks $893.50 for the truck’s repairs, as well as $3,900 for 2 days of lost wages while the truck was being fixed. Mitchell denies it caused any damage.

2.      Mr. Stanlow is self-represented. Mitchell is represented by an employee or principal.

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

4.      Section 39 of the CRTA says that 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. I also note that in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, at paragraphs 32 to 38, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized the CRT’s process and found that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is an issue.

5.      Section 42 of the CRTA says that 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.      In resolving this dispute the CRT may make one or more of the following orders, where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA:

a.    Order a party to do or stop doing something;

b.    Order a party to pay money;

c.    Order any other terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

7.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mitchell damaged Mr. Stanlow’s truck’s steering box and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

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

9.      Mr. Stanlow says that on February 29, 2020, his work truck broke down due to a fuel pump issue. He left the truck on the side of the road, partially on the road, partially on the shoulder. It is undisputed that before Mr. Stanlow could return to the truck the next day, the local police department had called the respondent tow company to move the truck. On March 1, 2020, Mitchell picked up the truck from the location where it was left and moved it to its yard. The next day, March 2, 2020, Mr. Stanlow arranged for Mitchell to bring the truck to an autobody repair shop, Whites Specialty Automotive & Truck Ltd (Whites).

10.   Mr. Stanlow says that Mitchell negligently towed the truck, causing damage to the steering box, and rendering the truck inoperable. He says he had to pay $893.50 to fix the steering box and lost 2 days of business for the extra repairs. Mitchell, on the other hand, denies any wrongdoing. It says it properly towed the vehicle to its yard and then to Mr. Stanlow’s preferred body shop. Mitchell says the steering box must have been damaged before the towing occurred, which is why the truck was left at the side of the road in the first place. It denies owing Mr. Stanlow any money.

11.   In support of his position, Mr. Stanlow submitted a letter from Jason Baxter, which states he is a “Red Seal Master Technician” at Whites. In the letter, Mr. Baxter states that upon his examination of the truck, the electric diesel fuel pump had failed, which Whites repaired. Upon re-testing the truck, Whites discovered the truck had no steering. Mr. Baxter says it is his opinion that the “steering box may have been damaged as a result of towing”, without the tow truck operator knowing. Mr. Baxter says it would have been “extremely unlikely” for the steering to have failed at the same time as the fuel pump, and if that had happened it would have “most probably resulted in a collision”.

12.   In response, Mitchell says it did not cause any damage, and that the truck clearly had previously mechanical issues unrelated to the towing it performed. Mitchell also says Mr. Baxter’s opinion should not be relied on because Mitchell hired a former employee of Whites, which led to animosity between the two companies.

13.   First, I find that Mr. Baxter’s opinion is not expert evidence under the CRT’s rules. I say this because although the letter states he is a “Red Seal Master Technician”, Mr. Baxter does not explain his qualifications or his experience. I find Mr. Baxter’s title in itself does not necessarily establish qualifications to provide expert evidence in diagnosing commercial truck issues. Further, even if I did accept Mr. Baxter’s opinion as expert evidence, I find the opinion is of little assistance. Other than stating his opinion that the towing “may have” damaged the steering box, Mr. Baxter does not explain how this could have happened. The words “may have” do not meet the required standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities or “more likely than not”. I find that without expert evidence explaining how a tow truck, using the tow method as explained by Mitchell, likely resulted in the steering box failure, I am unable to determine that Mitchell did in fact cause the damage.

14.   Although Mr. Stanlow says Mitchell’s negligence rendered his truck inoperable, I note that it was already inoperable when he left it on the side of the road.

15.   On balance, I am unable to conclude Mitchell caused the steering box damage. As a result, I find Mr. Stanlow has not proven his claim, and I dismiss it.

16.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. I see no reason to deviate from that general rule. As Mr. Stanlow was not successful, I find that he is not entitled to reimbursement of his paid tribunal fees. Mitchell did not pay CRT fees.

17.   Mitchell claimed $600 in dispute-related expenses for “time spent” dealing with this dispute, but provided no evidence or submissions in support of this claim. CRT rule 9.5(5) provides that, except in extraordinary circumstances, the CRT will not order one party to pay another party compensation for time spent dealing with the CRT proceeding. I find there are no extraordinary circumstances in this case, and I dismiss this expense claim.

ORDER

18.   I order Mr. Stanlow’s claims, and this dispute, dismissed.