Date Issued: October 26, 2021

File: SC-2021-003452

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Delafenetre v. Alistair Black Special Services Inc., 2021 BCCRT 1135

Between:

DAVID DELAFENETRE

Applicant

And:

ALISTAIR BLACK SPECIAL SERVICES INC.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the sale of a used vehicle. The respondent, Alistair Black Special Services Inc. (ABSS), acted as agent in the December 2019 sale of a 1999 Renault Twingo to a USA buyer, SO. The applicant, David Delafenetre (who asked to be referred to as Dr. Delafenetre), was the car’s owner and seller. SO undisputedly sent Dr. Delafenetre the car’s $1,500 USD purchase price, plus $900 CAD for shipping. Dr. Delafenetre then gave the $900 CAD to ABSS to cover the vehicle’s shipment to the USA, as ABSS had the non-functioning vehicle at its site.

2.      Later, shipping issues arose and ABSS had to send the car elsewhere for storage while awaiting SO’s instructions for shipment. Dr. Delafenetre alleges ABSS improperly applied the $900 CAD shipping fees he paid to vehicle storage. Dr. Delafenetre alleges the car sale contract is void because the car was not shipped and claims $900 CAD for the shipping fees. He also asks for orders that ABSS do the following: stop charging SO vehicle storage fees and return to him the vehicle’s registration paper, bill of sale, and the car that he says he will then dispose of.

3.      ABSS says it formed an agreement with the car’s new owner, SO, to use the “shipping” money to cover the cost of storage pending shipment. ABSS says the storage costs were paid by SO, not Dr. Delafenetre, since Dr. Delafenetre only passed the $900 CAD received from SO onto ABSS. SO is not a party to this dispute.

4.      Dr. Delafenetre is self-represented. ABSS is represented by its owner, Lionel Hondier.

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.      CRTA section 39 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 CRTA section 42, 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 CRTA section 118, 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.      Some of Dr. Delafenetre’s evidence was submitted in French. The CRT’s rules require evidence to be submitted in English or with an English translation. So, I have not considered the evidence in French.

ISSUES

10.   The issues are:

a.    Is Dr. Delafenetre the car’s current owner, and if not, does he have a property interest in the car?

b.    Was ABSS entitled to apply the $900 CAD shipping fees to storage costs under an agreement with the car’s buyer SO?

c.    What remedies, if any, are appropriate?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil claim like this one, as the applicant Dr. Delafenetre has the burden of proving his claim, on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have only referenced below what I find is necessary to give context to my decision.

12.   It is undisputed Dr. Delafenetre is not owed any money for the car itself. SO paid him in full for the car’s purchase price and in full for the car’s shipment to the USA. However, Dr. Delafenetre appears to argue that he is entitled to the car’s return, the shipping fees’ return, and also retain the car’s purchase funds. For the reasons that follow, I disagree.

13.   In a submitted Statement of Facts, the parties agree:

a.    The car’s buyer SO paid $900 CAD to Dr. Delafenetre to cover the car’s shipping to the USA.

b.    Dr. Delafenetre paid the above $900 CAD to ABSS for the car’s shipment to the USA.

c.    ABSS is storing the car for SO at a storage facility in BC, and the car has not left BC. SO is sending ABSS money for the vehicle’s storage.

d.    The car remains registered under Dr. Delafenetre’s name.

14.   Dr. Delafenetre undisputedly signed a December 2019 bill of sale confirming he sold the car to SO for $1,500 USD and the evidence shows SO also signed it. I find that on its face the bill of sale is complete, contrary to Dr. Delafenetre’s assertion. It describes the seller (Dr. Delafenetre), the buyer (SO), the purchase price ($1,500 USD), and is signed by both Dr. Delafenetre and SO, with Mr. Hondier as a witness. As noted, SO undisputedly has paid Dr. Delafenetre for the car.

15.   Dr. Delafenetre argues his contract with SO is void because SO has undisputedly not yet picked up the car. Dr. Delafenetre says he and SO agreed that SO would pick up the car from ABSS by December 31, 2019. I find at most the evidence before me shows that Dr. Delafenetre told SO that ABSS had “kindly accepted to keep the car on his lot” until that date. The other relevant term was that Dr. Delafenetre required final payment by no later than December 15, 2019, and the undisputed evidence is that SO did so.

16.   So, I find Dr. Delafenetre has not proved that the pick-up date was part of his contract with SO such that the contract is void for not having been picked up yet. In their June 14, 2021 witness statement, SO says that due to pandemic-related border closures, the car has remained in BC with ABSS paying for the storage on SO’s behalf pending shipment that SO will pay for. This is also supported by the storage keeper’s witness statement in evidence.

17.   Dr. Delafenetre also argues the car cannot be imported to the USA, but I find those issues irrelevant in this dispute. ABSS was not a party to the car’s sale contract. Further, even if SO cannot ultimately import the car to the USA, their doing so was not a term of their contract with Dr. Delafenetre. In other words, even if SO never imports the car to the USA, that does not void the sales contract or otherwise mean SO is not the car’s owner.

18.   Under the Sale of Goods Act (SGA), I find SO is now the car’s owner. SGA section 22 says that in a contract for the sale of specific goods (here, the car), the property in it is transferred to the buyer at the time the parties to the contract intended it to be transferred. To determine the parties’ intention, I must look at the contract’s terms, the parties’ conduct, and the particular circumstances.

19.   SGA section 23 essentially says that where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made. Contrary to Dr. Delafenetre’s apparent argument, I find insufficient evidence that he and SO attached any conditions to the sale.

20.   Here, I find the contract was completed. SO paid Dr. Delafenetre for the car and the shipping costs. Dr. Delafenetre instructed ABSS to ship the car to SO, as Dr. Delafenetre and SO agreed. I find SO is the car’s owner.

21.   Further, SGA section 33(5) says that if the car is in a third party’s possession (here, ABSS) there is no delivery by seller to the buyer unless and until that third party acknowledges to the buyer SO that they hold the goods on the buyer’s behalf.

22.   Here, the evidence clearly shows ABSS has clearly acknowledged that it holds the car for SO. SGA section 36 also says that delivery of goods to a carrier for transmission to the buyer is deemed to be delivery of the goods to the buyer, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, Dr. Delafenetre admits the sale included a term that Dr. Delafenetre would not be responsible for the importation or registration process. So, again, I find it irrelevant that as buyer SO chose to leave the car with ABSS and has not yet picked the car up.

23.   I also find it irrelevant in this dispute against ABSS that SO has not registered the car in their own name. That is an issue between Dr. Delafenetre and SO, not ABSS. The lack of registration with SO listed as owner does not mean Dr. Delafenetre is once again the car’s owner such that I could order ABSS to return the car to Dr. Delafenetre or grant the other requested relief.

24.   In short, for the purposes of this dispute I find Dr. Delafenetre no longer has any property interest in the car. It belongs to SO. SO paid Dr. Delafenetre $900 CAD for shipping the car to SO, which funds Dr. Delafenetre then forwarded to ABSS. I find Dr. Delafenetre has no legal basis for a claim against that $900 CAD, regardless of the fact that SO has chosen to instruct ABSS to apply those funds to storage fees. Again, Dr. Delafenetre has no property interest in the car or in those funds paid to ship the car. I dismiss the $900 CAD claim.

25.   Given I find Dr. Delafenetre sold the car and property in it transferred to SO at the time of sale in December 2019, I find no evidence that ABSS has breached any trust relationship with Dr. Delafenetre as he alleges. I also note that there is no evidence that ABSS is profiting from the vehicle’s storage, since it is only recouping from SO what it is paying to store the car.

26.   Given my conclusions above, I also find Dr. Delafenetre is not entitled to the car’s return. I do not have the jurisdiction to grant the requested order that ABSS stop charging SO storage fees, as this is injunctive relief outside CRTA section 118. However, I would have not granted that remedy in any event, given my findings above. I say the same about the registration paper and the bill of sale, copies of which are both in evidence in any event. I dismiss Dr. Delafenetre’s claims.

27.   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. Dr. Delafenetre was unsuccessful and so I find he is not entitled to reimbursement of CRT fees or dispute-related expenses. ABSS did not pay CRT fees.

28.   ABSS claims $945.21 as reimbursement of legal fees it paid to deal with this dispute and submitted an August 9, 2021 account from BTM Lawyers LLP. The CRT’s rules say legal fees are generally not reimbursable except in extraordinary cases. This is not an extraordinary case. I dismiss this expense claim.

ORDERS

29.   I dismiss Dr. Delafenetre’s claims and this dispute. I dismiss ABSS’ claim for reimbursement of dispute-related expenses.