Date Issued: August 26, 2021

File: SC-2021-001961

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Carruthers v. Kelowna E Ride Inc., 2021 BCCRT 939

Between:

THOMAS CARRUTHERS

Applicant

And:

KELOWNA E RIDE INC.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a dispute about damage to an electric bicycle. The applicant, Thomas Carruthers, hired the respondent, Kelowna E Ride Inc. (KER), to replace the electric bicycle batteries in a battery case. More than 3 months later, he hired KER again to fix an issue with his electric bicycle. Mr. Carruthers says KER caused the issue by incorrectly installing the batteries in the case, which damaged the bicycle when he installed the battery case into the bicycle and tried to charge it. He claims $522.58 for “labour parts filing fees service fees” without further explanation or breakdown of that amount.

2.      KER denies installing the batteries incorrectly or damaging the bicycle, and says it does not know what Mr. Carruthers did with his bicycle between the time it replaced the batteries and the time he brought the bicycle in for repairs.

3.      Mr. Carruthers is self-represented in this dispute. KER is represented by an authorized employee.

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 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 KER damaged Mr. Carruthers’ bicycle by incorrectly installing its batteries in a case, and if so, does KER owe $522.58 or another amount for repairs?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Carruthers must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submitted material but refer only to the relevant evidence and arguments needed to explain my decision.

10.   Mr. Carruthers’ bicycle is powered by 4 electric batteries. I infer from the submitted evidence that these batteries are installed in and wired to a battery case. I also infer that this battery case is then installed in and electrically connected to the bicycle. The bicycle includes a controller unit, which appears to govern how electricity from the batteries is supplied to the bicycle’s electric motor.

11.   It is undisputed that on July 30, 2020, Mr. Carruthers hired KER to replace the 4 batteries in the bicycle’s battery case, as shown in a KER work order in evidence. The 4 batteries cost $459.96 and labour was $93.75, which totalled $620.16 after tax.

12.   Mr. Carruthers says that KER incorrectly wired the batteries in the case, and that KER reversed their polarity. He also says that “no one knows who actually put the batteries in wrong”, but that KER was the only one to touch and install the batteries. I take this to mean that he does not know which specific KER employee incorrectly installed the batteries in the case. Mr. Carruthers says that he “plugged them in and blew the electronics”.

13.   There are no battery or bicycle photos in evidence. Nothing before me shows or explains how the batteries were connected to the case and the case to the bicycle, or what the correct connections should have been. Mr. Carruthers does not further explain why he thinks the miswiring “blew the electronics”. He does not say when he installed the battery case in the bicycle or what specifically occurred when he did. He also does not say whether or how long the bicycle remained operable after he installed the battery case, and when or how any particular bicycle failures occurred.

14.   Although Mr. Carruthers says the electronics “blew”, I find the evidence does not describe any problems with the bicycle until he took it to KER in November 2020 because it “had no throttle” and was having charging issues. As noted, this was more than 3 months after KER installed the batteries in the case. It is not clear from the evidence whether the bicycle was still operable at that time or whether Mr. Carruthers rode it to KER.

15.   A November 5, 2020 KER work order said that KER “rewired the battery to the correct position”, replaced a damaged connection, and replaced the bicycle’s controller with a new one, which fixed the throttle and charging issues. The work order charged $268.83 including tax for these repairs, including the new controller. A November 5, 2020 sales receipt in evidence largely mirrored the content of the work order, but also noted that the labour charge included a $41.67 reduction labelled “reverse charge for previous wiring mistakes.”

16.   KER does not describe the wiring mistakes noted on the sales receipt. I find that Mr. Carruthers primarily relies on the November 5, 2020 work order and sales receipt, which he says show that KER wired the batteries incorrectly. He says that this wiring mistake damaged the bicycle, causing it to need a new controller.

17.   KER says that it uses procedures that avoid wiring bicycle batteries in reverse polarity and causing an electrical short. However, KER does not comment on its July 2020 battery installation for Mr. Carruthers. KER says it does not know what customers do with their items after it services them, and that it regularly repairs bicycle damage following customers’ attempted home repairs. Mr. Carruthers says no one but KER touched the batteries, but does not say whether he attempted any bicycle repairs or modifications himself.

18.   Having reviewed the evidence and submissions, I find it likely that KER made wiring mistakes on Mr. Carruthers’ bicycle, which it corrected on November 5, 2020. Since the work order says KER “rewired the battery to the correct position,” I find it likely that the wiring mistakes were mistakes in wiring the batteries in the battery case. I also find that the bicycle’s charge controller failed and a “connection” was damaged.

19.   The question is, did KER’s wiring mistakes cause the charge controller to fail, or damage the “connection”? Mr. Carruthers says that KER’s miswiring “blew” the electronics, but as noted he does not say what happened when he installed the battery case and attempted to use the bicycle, or when and how its throttle and charging began having problems. I find that Mr. Carruthers says KER’s battery miswiring caused those problems because the November 5, 2020 work order and sales receipt diagnosed wiring mistakes at the same time KER diagnosed and repaired the controller and connection problems. This is consistent with Mr. Carruthers’ indication in the Dispute Notice that he discovered his claim against KER in November 2020.

20.   In the circumstances, I find the fact that KER diagnosed battery wiring problems at the same service appointment that it diagnosed controller and connection problems, is insufficient to prove that the wiring issue caused the controller and connection problems. Further, I find the questions of whether a battery wiring problem in Mr. Carruthers’ bicycle could damage the controller or the connection, and whether KER’s particular wiring mistake contributed to the diagnosed controller or connection problems, are technical questions that are beyond ordinary knowledge and experience. I find that those questions require expert evidence to prove.

21.   There is no expert evidence before me in this dispute. In fact, the only direct evidence of battery wiring mistakes is the KER invoice and sales receipt, which I find lack necessary detail. As noted, Mr. Carruthers bears the burden of proving his dispute claims, and this includes proving that KER’s battery miswiring caused the controller problems and connection damage. On the evidence and submissions before me, I find that Mr. Carruthers has not met his burden of proving that the miswiring caused those problems.

22.   Further, given that the sales receipt undisputedly contained a labour charge credit for correcting the battery wiring mistake, I find that KER did not charge Mr. Carruthers extra for correcting its mistake.

23.   I dismiss Mr. Carruthers’ claim for $522.58 for bicycle-related damage and repairs.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

24.   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. I see no reason not to follow that general rule. I find KER was successful, but paid no CRT fees. Mr. Carruthers was unsuccessful, so is not entitled to any reimbursement. Neither party claimed CRT dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

25.   I dismiss Mr. Carruthers’ claims, and this dispute.