Date Issued: July 8, 2021

File: SC-2020-009771

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Pacheco v. Lantz, 2021 BCCRT 749

Between:

ROBERT PACHECO

Applicant

And:

MATTHEW CHAD LANTZ

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about tool storage. The applicant, Robert Pacheco, stored his tools in a storage container at a mill site operated by the respondent, Matthew Chad Lantz. Mr. Pacheco claims that Mr. Lantz is responsible for the replacement cost of tools allegedly missing from the storage container. Mr. Pacheco claims $915.60.

2.      Mr. Lantz says that he permitted Mr. Pacheco’s tool storage without charging storage fees. However, Mr. Lantz says that he warned Mr. Pacheco that there have been past thefts from the site and he took no responsibility for Mr. Pacheco’s items.

3.      Both parties are self-represented.

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.      The CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, or a combination of these. Though I found that some aspects of the parties’ submissions called each other’s credibility into question, I find I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me without an oral hearing. In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the court recognized that oral hearings are not always necessary when credibility is in issue. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate of proportional and speedy dispute resolution, I decided I can fairly hear this dispute through written submissions.

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 do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Lantz is responsible for the replacement cost of Mr. Pacheco’s allegedly missing tools.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant, Mr. Pacheco must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision. Mr. Lantz did not provide any evidence, though he had the opportunity to do so.

10.   It is undisputed that the parties agreed that Mr. Pacheco could store his tools for free in Mr. Lantz’s storage container at a mill site. The terms of this storage agreement are discussed below. It is also undisputed that Mr. Pacheco placed his tools there and that Mr. Pacheco, Mr. Lantz and Mr. Lantz’s son had keys to the storage container. Mr. Lantz also says that one key was left unsecured in his office.

11.   Mr. Pacheco says that he left the mill site for an unspecified period of time. He says that when he returned on September 5, 2000, he discovered that some of his tools were missing from the storage container. Since Mr. Lantz does not dispute this, I accept these submissions as accurate.

12.   I find that by letting Mr. Pacheco store his tools in the storage container, a bailment was created between the parties. The law of bailment imposes obligations to safeguard another party’s possessions. It is where the personal property of one person, the “bailor”, is held or stored by another person, the “bailee.”

13.   A bailee can be a gratuitous bailee or a voluntary bailee for reward. A voluntary bailee for reward is someone who agrees to receive the goods as part of a transaction in which the bailee gets paid. In contrast, a gratuitous bailment is where the bailor (here, Mr. Pacheco) gets something for nothing.

14.   Mr. Pacheco says that Mr. Lantz asked him to store his tools at the site so he could use the tools to perform work for Mr. Lantz. Based on the multiple emails exchanged between the parties, I find that Mr. Pacheco performed a variety of work for Mr. Lantz’ business. Mr. Pacheco says that he was uncomfortable leaving his tools there and he could have stored the tools elsewhere. However, Mr. Pacheco says that he agreed to leave his tools at Mr. Lantz’s site if they were locked.

15.   In contrast, Mr. Lantz says that he did not ask Mr. Pacheco to store his tools there or want him to. Rather, Mr. Lantz says that Mr. Pacheco asked to store his tools. Mr. Lantz says that he was not paid to store the tools and he warned Mr. Pacheco that thefts had previously occurred there and he would not be responsible for any loss. Since Mr. Pacheco does not dispute this, I accept that Mr. Lantz gave Mr. Pacheco this warning and Mr. Pacheco agreed to store his tools there under these conditions.

16.   In considering the parties’ conflicting submissions, I find both parties’ versions of events to be equally likely. So, I find that Mr. Pacheco has failed to prove that Mr. Lantz received any benefit from storing the tools. So, I find that Mr. Lantz was a gratuitous bailee, rather than a voluntary bailee for reward.

17.   As the bailee, Mr. Lantz was responsible for exercising reasonable care safeguarding the tools, in all of the circumstances (see Harris v. Maltman and KBM Autoworks, 2017 BCPC 273). As discussed above, Mr. Pacheco stored his tools at his own risk and with the knowledge that the site had a history of thefts. In these circumstances, I find Mr. Lantz was only required to provide a low level of care to safeguard the tools. As such, I find that Mr. Lantz was only required to leave the tools stored in the same manner that Mr. Pacheco had left them, without taking additional measures to preserve or protect them. For the following reasons, I find that Mr. Pacheco has failed to prove that Mr. Lantz breached this duty.

18.   Mr. Pacheco says that a locking unit was welded onto the storage container with a protective metal tube when he stored his tools. However, Mr. Pacheco says that when he returned, he found the storage container left open, without signs of forcible entry. Since Mr. Lantz does not dispute these submissions, I accept them as accurate. However, I find that Mr. Pacheco has failed to prove that Mr. Lantz was responsible for leaving the storage container unlocked because it is undisputed that at least one other person had access to the storage container. Further, I find that the Mr. Lantz did not have an obligation to monitor the storage container to ensure that it was locked. In the absence of sufficient evidence showing that Mr. Lantz, rather than someone else, left the storage container unlocked, I find that Mr. Pacheco has not proved that Mr. Lantz breached his duty. So, I find that Mr. Lantz is not responsible for Mr. Pacheco’s missing tools.

19.   In his submissions, Mr. Pacheco also argues that Mr. Lantz damaged his tools and equipment. However, I find that this claim is not before me since it was not raised in Mr. Pacheco’s application for dispute resolution or his amendment to the Dispute Notice. I find it would be procedurally unfair and prejudicial to Mr. Lantz to permit Mr. Pacheco to raise new claims during his submissions. So, I do not make any finding about whether Mr. Lantz damaged Mr. Pacheco’s property.

20.   For the above reasons, I dismiss Mr. Pacheco’s claim.

21.   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. Since Mr. Pacheco was unsuccessful, I dismiss his request for reimbursement of CRT fees. Mr. Lantz did not claim reimbursement of dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

22.   I dismiss Mr. Pacheco’s claim, and this dispute.