Date Issued: September 9, 2021

File: SC-2021-000948

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: C.L. v. B.L., 2021 BCCRT 979

Between:

C.L.

Applicant

And:

B.L.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about alleged mishandling of personal belongings. The applicant, C.L. (CL), says her ex-spouse, the respondent B.L. (BL), took various belongings from her home that belonged to her children and her, rather than just taking what was admittedly necessary for BL to care for the parties’ minor child AD. CL claims $3,467, which she says is the value of the allegedly stolen property, including Christmas gifts for AD and CL’s other 2 children, children’s clothing and medications, identification, and CL’s “personal property”. CL also claims $1,500 for alleged personal loans she says she made to BL for various purposes.

2.      BL was undisputedly granted custody of AD from December 24, 2020 to January 23, 2021 under a safety plan issued by the Ministry of Children and Families (MCFD). On December 23 or 24, 2020, CL was away from home and undisputedly gave permission for BL to attend CL’s home to pick up AD’s belongings and AD’s Christmas gifts, to be accompanied by an RCMP officer. BL says he did so in a hurry, given the RCMP officer’s presence. BL says he did pick up a backpack that he later realized contained items unrelated to AD, but says he returned that to CL through the RCMP. Otherwise, BL denies taking CL’s or other children’s items and asks that the claim be dismissed. BL agrees to repay $675 for a loan CL gave him, but denies he owes more because he says the parties were financially interdependent.

3.      In the published version of this decision, I have anonymized the parties’ identities, given the sensitive circumstances and to protect AD’s identify.

4.      The parties are each self-represented, though the respondent has had some legal assistance in preparing his submissions.

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). 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 parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution 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. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find I can fairly hear this dispute based on the submitted evidence and through written submissions.

7.      Under section 42 of the CRTA, 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, order a party to pay money, or order any other terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

9.      In her reply submissions, CL objects to a number of BL’s evidence items and arguments. In particular, CL says they violate the CRT’s code of conduct, are misleading or untrue, or are irrelevant to this dispute. Just because one party argues the other’s evidence is inaccurate or untrue does not make it irrelevant or inadmissible. It is for me to decide whose version of events is the most likely. In any event, I find both parties have made arguments and submitted some evidence that is irrelevant to the issue before me, which is whether BL took and failed to return CL’s belongings and whether she is entitled to the claimed damages. Bearing in mind the CRT’s flexible mandate, I allow the submitted evidence. As necessary, I address below the relevant weight I give to the evidence.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Whether BL took and failed to return the claimed property, and if so, has CL proven the claimed value or damages, and

b.    To what extent does BL owe CL money for unpaid personal loans.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil claim like this one, as the applicant CL has the burden of proving her claim, on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). As noted above, I have only referenced below what I find is necessary to give context to my decision. In particular, I find it unnecessary to discuss the parties’ relationship history, personal issues, or the reasons why CL was away from home in late December 2020.

Personal belongings

12.   In a Statement of Facts, the parties both say they agreed that BL could obtain “necessary items” from CL’s home for his care of AD. The parties also agree that while accompanied by an RCMP officer, BL went to CL’s residence on December 23, 2020 to pick up the items.

13.   I find CL’s evidence and submissions are not entirely clear about what she says BL took and has not returned. I find her evidence is inconsistent between what she set out in the Dispute Notice, her evidence, and in later submissions. On balance, I find CL alleges the un-returned items may be summarized as follows: money and items in CL’s wallet, CL’s prescription Rayban glasses, unspecified Christmas gifts and gift cards for children, and clothing and bedding for AD. CL also submits BL had taken and returned AD’s bike, but that it was returned in “horrible condition”.

14.   Significantly, CL does not explain in her submissions how she arrived at the claimed $3,467 value. CL submitted some receipts but they do not add up to this total. Her list of items in evidence does not add up to the claimed $3,467 either.

15.   In any event, I find the central issue here is whether CL has proven that BL took CL’s items that he did not return. As noted, BL says he was in a hurry and grabbed items in CL’s home in about 10 minutes, with the RCMP officer. BL admits he took a backpack and another bag that he says CL told him contained AD’s items, and later discovered it also contained things unrelated to AD. BL says he returned everything to CL, apart from AD’s medication that he still needed as AD was in his care until January 23, 2021 under the MCFD safety plan that was undisputedly in place. BL also says he would not have had time to take all the things CL alleges he took, such as emptying her freezer.

16.   CL submitted a May 10, 2021 statement from her roommate NB, who is also father to her other child A. I find it irrelevant whether CL and NB were also in a romantic relationship or not, as alleged by BL. NB wrote he observed CL buying “excessive” Christmas gifts for her children and he agreed to store them in his bathroom. NB says that the items listed by CL are missing items that BL took. However, NB also says that he was not home when BL attended on December 24, 2020 with the RCMP. I note this December 24 date is inconsistent with the parties’ agreement that BL picked up the items on December 23. NB stated that he asked his relative J to facilitate BL’s entry, but says that when his relative arrived someone had taken all the Christmas gifts and food, along with AD’s bike, and had gone. NB says that while BL returned some items, he kept “the majority of them”. I place little weight on NB’s statement because he is not neutral given his roommate and family relationship with CL, he was admittedly not present when BL was in the house with the police, and because his evidence is vague about what was taken and returned.

17.   CL submitted a December 30, 2020 screenshot of a text with BL (including a photo of a seemingly full freezer), in which she said she discovered “the meat is all gone”. BL responded that “I only grabbed the pork and your more than welcome to have it back” (reproduced as written). On balance, I find CL has not proved BL emptied her freezer or took all her meat. I also she has not proved the value of the alleged food, including the “pork” BL admittedly took.

18.   CL submitted various photos showing what BL returned to her, through the RCMP or otherwise. These include a zippered bag, a backpack, a wallet, various identification cards, and some clothes. I find these photos are just as likely to support BL’s version of events as CL’s. In other words, I find CL has not proved BL took items from CL’s home that have not been returned. Similarly, I find photos of children’s prescription receipts do not prove BL took and failed to return the medications. CL also submitted an itemized list of 39 items she says BL took, plus 14 “gifts” she says he took. CL submitted receipts for some of these items. Again, I find this list and these receipts do not prove BL took and failed to return the claimed items.

19.   CL submitted a statement from NB’s relative J, who addressed what she described as the “events of December 24, 2020”. As noted, the parties agreed BL went to CL’s home on December 23. I find nothing turns on this date discrepancy. J wrote that she entered the house that morning and saw “Christmas gifts” in the shower and some wrapped gifts and “lots of bags” on the floor. J wrote she took 4 gifts for A, sorted through some bags and “took some candy”. J said that after NB called her about BL wanting access, J returned and found all the gifts gone from the bathroom, along with AD’s clothes, and CL’s backpack and large blue tote bags. On balance, while J is likely more impartial than NB, I find she is not neutral either given her relationship with NB. Further, like NB, J was not present when BL went through the house with the police.

20.   In the circumstances, I find CL has not proven that BL took the claimed items and failed to return them. I say this because BL was undisputedly in the house only briefly and in the company of an RCMP officer. No one witnessed BL taking the significant volume of items CL says he took. There is no police record in evidence from the officer who accompanied BL. Also, CL’s evidence is somewhat unspecific in terms of what was allegedly taken. At most, I find the parties’ versions of events are equally likely and as noted CL has the burden of proof. I also find CL has not proven the amount of the claimed damages. I dismiss this claim.

Alleged personal loans

21.   The parties agree that during December 2020, CL sent e-transfers in varying amounts to BL. CL claims $1,500 as reimbursement.

22.   Cl submitted a November 28, 2020 screenshot of BL asking for a $200 loan. CL also submitted a December 21, 2020 screenshot between her and BL, in which BL asked for $675 so he could get his license renewed. CL responded that giving him that would mean he had received $1,500 of her savings in the past month. BL responded that now he was working, he “will have it back”.

23.   In support of this claim, CL submitted copies of records of $1,530 in e-transfers to BL in December 2020: $30 on December 2, $500 on December 2, $40 on December 12, $60 on December 12, $700 on December 21, $200 on December 21. For most of these, notes attached to the e-transfer indicated it was a loan, which I find is consistent with the parties’ text messages summarized above.

24.   BL submits the parties were interdependent and helped each other out financially. However, he submitted no evidence of this and in particular no evidence he ever loaned CL money. I find the evidence shows the money at issue in this dispute was given to BL on a loan basis. I find CL is entitled to reimbursement of the claimed $1,500, given the amount transferred exceeded that.

25.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. I find CL is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $1,500. Calculated from January 1, 2021, a date I find reasonable in the circumstances to the date of this decision, this interest equals $4.65.

26.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. CL was partially successful and so I order BL to reimburse her half the $50 paid in CRT fees, or $25.

ORDERS

27.   Within 30 days of this decision, I order BL to pay CL a total of $1,529.65, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,500 in debt,

b.    $4.65 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $25 for reimbursement of paid CRT fees.

28.   CL is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable. I dismiss CL’s remaining claims.

29.   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 BC 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 in effect until 90 days after June 30, 2021, which is the date of the end of the state of emergency declared on March 18, 2020, 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.

30.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of BC. 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 BC.