Date Issued: May 6, 2021

File: SC-2021-002401

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Beckett v. Hooper dba Better Than Rent 2 Own, 2021 BCCRT 480

Between:

JASON BECKETT

Applicant

And:

TONY HOOPER (Doing Business As BETTER THAN RENT 2 OWN)

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a final decision of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), but it is not a decision on the merits of the applicant’s claims. The issue is whether the applicant’s claims should be dismissed as out of time. CRT staff referred this dispute to me for a decision on this issue.

2.      The applicant, Jason Beckett and the respondent, Tony Hooper (doing business as Better Than Rent 2 Own) are both self-represented.

3.      For the reasons that follow, I find Mr. Beckett’s claims are out of time and dismiss his claims and this dispute. In making this decision, I reviewed the Dispute Notice, the Dispute Response, and the parties’ submissions as documented in a Preliminary Issue Tribunal Decision Plan.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      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.

5.      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.

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 Mr. Beckett is out of time to bring his claims against Mr. Hooper.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      Mr. Beckett filed a dispute with the CRT on March 22, 2021. The Dispute Notice was issued on the same day.

9.      In the Dispute Notice, Mr. Beckett says he paid Mr. Hooper a $5,250 deposit in exchange for Mr. Hooper arranging a ‘rent to own’ home for Mr. Beckett. Mr. Beckett says that Mr. Hooper found a rental home for him, but did not help arrange financing for the ‘rent to own’ home, or help renting out the basement suite, despite numerous requests. Mr. Beckett seeks a refund of $5,000.00 for the deposit, which is the CRT’s maximum in its small claims jurisdiction.

10.   In the Dispute Response, Mr. Hooper says Mr. Beckett caused extensive damage to the rental home and was evicted. Mr. Hooper says Mr. Beckett signed a document that states no refunds are provided. Mr. Hooper also questioned why it had taken Mr. Beckett almost five years to come forward.

The Limitation Act

11.   As noted above, CRT staff identified a potential limitation period issue and asked the parties to provide submissions on whether Mr. Beckett’s claims are out of time.

12.   The Limitation Act applies to disputes before the CRT. A limitation period is a specific time period within which a person may pursue a claim. If the time period expires, the right to bring the claim disappears. Section 6 of the Limitation Act says that the basic limitation period is two years, and that a claim may not be commenced more than two years after the day on which the claim is discovered.

13.   Section 8 of the Limitation Act says a claim is “discovered” on the first day that the person knew or reasonably ought to have known that the loss had occurred, that it was caused or contributed to by an act or omission of the person against whom the claim may be made, and that a court or tribunal proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the loss. Here, if Mr. Beckett’s claim arose before March 22, 2019, which is 2 years before his CRT application, his claim is out of time.

14.   In the Dispute Notice, Mr. Beckett says he became aware of the claim in August 2019, but in his submissions he says he did not realize he had a legal course of action until he spoke with an investigator from the “office of the Superintendent of the Real Estate Board” in September 2020, who indicated that Mr. Hooper was under investigation and mentioned that the Mr. Beckett “may want to look into legal action against him”. However, the date that Mr. Beckett spoke to an investigator or learned more about his claim is not when the time began running on his claim. I find this is not the first time Mr. Beckett ought to have known about his claim, as I discuss further below.  

15.   Mr. Beckett also says January 3, 2018 was the last time he sent an email to Mr. Hooper. He says he asked for a full refund of the $5,000 deposit at that time and was advised by Mr. Hooper that no refunds were available. Mr. Beckett says he moved out of the rental home found for him by Mr. Hooper on January 31, 2019, after repeated phone calls and emails to Mr. Hooper. Mr. Hooper says the parties first entered the agreement in June 2017 and he has not heard from Mr. Beckett since he left the rental home Mr. Hooper found for him.

16.   I find that Mr. Beckett knew or ought to have known of his claim against Mr. Hooper by January 3, 2018, when Mr. Hooper denied Mr. Beckett’s request for a refund of the $5,000 deposit. At the very latest, I find Mr. Beckett ought to have known of his claim when he decided to move out of the rental home on January 31, 2019. Mr. Beckett says this is the first day he became aware that Mr. Hooper would not be providing any further services related to the deposit paid by Mr. Beckett.

17.   As I have found above that Mr. Beckett’s claim arose before March 22, 2019, I find Mr. Beckett is out of time to bring the dispute and his claim is statute barred by the Limitation Act. I dismiss Mr. Beckett’s claims and this dispute on that basis.

18.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT rules, the CRT generally will order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Beckett was not successful, I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of CRT fees. Mr. Hooper did not pay CRT fees of claim expenses.

ORDER

19.   I dismiss Mr. Beckett’s claims and this dispute.