Date Issued: January 28, 2021

File: SC-2020-006966

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Rogers v. Evanoff, 2021 BCCRT 102

Between:

GABRIEL ROGERS

Applicant

And:

KYLA EVANOFF

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about ownership of a dog named Ceasar. The applicant, Gabriel Rogers, says the respondent, Kyla Evanoff, stole Ceasar when their relationship ended. Mr. Gabriel seeks the dog’s return.

2.      Ms. Evanoff denies that she stole Ceasar and says Ceasar was lawfully in her possession. She says she arranged for a family to dog sit Ceasar while she found a new place to live. During the later decision phase of this proceeding, Ceasar was returned to Mr. Rogers, and Ms. Evanoff now agrees that Ceasar belongs with Mr. Rogers.

3.      Mr. Rogers says he gave $230 to the family that was dog sitting Ceasar, for expenses. He claims reimbursement of this amount from Ms. Evanoff.

4.      The parties are each self-represented.

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, and I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing. 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.

ISSUES

9.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Who owns Ceasar?

b.    Does Ms. Evanoff owe Mr. Rogers $230 for Ceasar’s dog sitting expenses?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant, Mr. Rogers bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. While I have read all of the evidence and submissions, I have only addressed them to the extent necessary to explain my decision. I note that Ms. Evanoff did not file any evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so.

11.   As noted above, the main issue in this dispute about who should possess Ceasar, appears to be resolved between the parties. However, for clarity, I will provide my analysis about Ceasar’s ownership.

12.   It is well established that the law considers pets to be personal property (see Brown v. Larochelle, 2017 BCPC 115). Mr. Rogers filed evidence showing that he purchased Ceasar in July 2020, and he says that he raised and trained Ceasar. None of this is disputed by Ms. Evanoff.

13.   Ms. Evanoff submits that it is currently in Ceasar’s “best interests” to stay with Mr. Rogers. She says she has moved away, and her lifestyle would not support having a puppy. However, from a legal standpoint, pet ownership is not about who might be better able to care for it. Pet ownership is about who has the best property claim to the pet. Neither party provided any evidence of Ms. Evanoff’s involvement in Ceasar’s life during the parties’ relationship.

14.   While Ms. Evanoff does not specifically concede that Mr. Rogers owns Ceasar, I find on the evidence before me that Mr. Rogers has proven he has the best ownership claim to Ceasar. Given that Ceasar is currently in Mr. Rogers’ possession, I find I do not have to otherwise resolve Mr. Rogers’ claim for Ceasar’s return.

15.   Turning to Mr. Rogers’ $230 claim for Ceasar’s dog sitting expenses, Mr. Rogers says he voluntarily paid this amount to the family that Ms. Evanoff left Ceasar with because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he was grateful for their kindness. I note that Mr. Rogers only first raised this issue in reply, so Ms. Evanoff did not have the opportunity to respond. Even if he had properly advanced this claim, I find that Mr. Rogers has not proven he paid this money or that Ms. Evanoff is responsible for the voluntary payment. I dismiss Mr. Rogers’ claim for dog sitting expenses.

16.   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. Ms. Evanoff essentially conceded the main issue in this dispute and, as noted, I found in Mr. Rogers’ favour about his ownership of the dog. Therefore, I find it is appropriate to order Ms. Evanoff to reimburse Mr. Rogers $125 for his paid CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

17.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order the respondent, Kyla Evanoff, to reimburse the applicant, Gabriel Rogers, $125 in paid CRT fees. I dismiss Mr. Rogers’ remaining claim.

18.   Mr. Rogers is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

19.   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.

20.   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.