Date Issued: May 26, 2021

File: SC-2020-009610

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: All-Can Express Ltd. dba A.C.E. Courier Services v. Carroll,
2021 BCCRT 566

Between:

ALL-CAN EXPRESS LTD. doing business as A.C.E. COURIER SERVICES

Applicant

And:

DANA CARROLL and TRUSTED TRADES INC.

Respondents

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, All-Can Express Ltd. doing business as A.C.E. Courier Services (ACE), is a courier company. ACE claims that the respondents, Dana Carroll and Trusted Trades Inc. (Trusted Trades), are responsible for 2 unpaid invoices totaling $3,142.97. In particular, ACE says that Dana Carroll personally guaranteed the invoices.

2.      The respondents say that Dana Carroll hired ACE on behalf of their employer at the time, Burrard Inlet Rail Contracting Ltd., which is not a party to this dispute. Dana Carroll denies that they guaranteed the invoices. The respondents also say that Trusted Trades had nothing to do with the 2 invoices. The respondents ask that I dismiss ACE’s claims.

3.      ACE is represented by an employee. Dana Carroll represents both respondents.

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 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. 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.

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 pay money or to do or stop doing something. The tribunal’s order may include any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Is Trusted Trades responsible for the invoices?

b.    Is Dana Carroll responsible for the invoices as a guarantor?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, ACE as the applicant must prove its case on a balance of probabilities. While I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I note that neither party provided much evidence.

10.   This dispute is about 2 unpaid courier invoices. The first, dated August 31, 2020, was for $1,828.05. The second, dated September 11, 2020, was for $1,314.92. On both invoices, the customer is listed as Burrard Wet Rail Contracting Ltd. As mentioned above, the respondents say that it was Burrard Inlet Rail Contracting Ltd. that hired ACE. In the statement of facts in evidence, the parties agree that ACE provided the courier services at issue to Burrard Inlet Rail Contracting Ltd. I infer from the evidence that there are not 2 separate companies involved and that the parties have used the 2 names interchangeably. To avoid confusion, I will refer to this company as “Burrard Rail”.

11.   As mentioned above, Burrard Rail is not a party to this dispute. Dana Carroll says that Burrard Rail is insolvent and in the process of filing for bankruptcy, although it has not done so yet. ACE does not specifically dispute this, and it would explain why ACE did not name Burrard Rail as a respondent. In any event, I make no findings about Burrard Rail’s solvency as it is not a party to this dispute.

12.   I will first address ACE’s claim against Trusted Trades. As mentioned above, the respondents say that Trusted Trades had nothing to do with the 2 unpaid invoices. A BC Registry corporate search in evidence shows that Dana Carroll is one of Trusted Trades’ directors. There is no other evidence linking Trusted Trades to the invoices. In the statement of facts, ACE agreed that Trusted Trades does not have an ACE account. ACE does not say why Trusted Trades should be responsible for the 2 invoices. Given the lack of evidence or explanation, I find that ACE has not proven that Trusted Trades is responsible for the invoices. I dismiss ACE’s claims against Trusted Trades.

13.   I turn then to Dana Carroll. The parties agree that Dana Carroll was a Burrard Rail employee when ACE provided the services in question. Dana Carroll says that they were a senior manager.

14.   ACE says that Dana Carroll guaranteed Burrard Rail’s account. ACE provided an Application for Credit Account for Burrard Rail dated July 18, 2018. This single page document includes 1 signature line for a “guarantor”, which Dana Carroll admittedly signed. In other words, there is no separate signature line for someone to sign as an authorized signatory for Burrard Rail. The application includes some contractual terms but nothing about the terms of any guarantee. ACE does not say anything about what Dana Carroll agreed to other than to say that Dana Carroll is a guarantor. The only evidence of Dana Carroll being a guarantor is the use of the word “guarantor” on the signature line of the application.

15.   Dana Carroll says that they signed the application on Burrard Rail’s behalf as an employee. Dana Carroll says that they did not agree to be personally responsible for the non-payment of Burrard Rail’s account.

16.   I find that this situation is similar to the BC Court of Appeal case Times Square v. Shimizu, 2001 BCCA 448. In that case, the defendant, Mr. Shimizu, signed an offer to lease agreement “as guarantor”. The agreement also said that it was “guaranteed by” Mr. Shimizu. However, there was no contractual term that spelled out what exactly Mr. Shimizu agreed to guarantee. The court concluded that “guarantees come in all shapes and sizes” and that just using the word “guarantor” or “guarantee” does not by itself create a guarantee. There needs to be a contractual term that describes the parties’ agreement about what is guaranteed and on what terms.

17.   I find that the same reasoning applies here. I find that the use of the word “guarantor” on the signature line is not enough to make Dana Carroll personally responsible for Burrard Rail’s unpaid invoices. For this reason, I dismiss ACE’s claim that Dana Carroll pay the invoices.

18.   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. ACE was unsuccessful so I dismiss its claim for CRT fees and dispute-related expenses. The respondents did not claim any dispute-related expenses or pay any CRT fees.

ORDER

19.  I dismiss ACE’s claims, and this dispute.