Date Issued: November 2, 2021

File: SC-2021-003635

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: 1256058 B.C. Ltd. v. Craftsman Collision (1981) Ltd., 2021 BCCRT 1160

Between:

1256058 B.C. LTD.

Applicant

And:

CRAFTSMAN COLLISION (1981) LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about truck repairs. The applicant, 1256058 B.C. Ltd. (125) says the respondent, Craftsman Collision (1981) Ltd. (Craftsman), increased its truck repair fees without notice and contrary to the parties’ agreement. 125 says it had to pay Craftsman’s invoice in order to get the truck back. 125 claims $2,980, as the difference between the quote and what it paid. 125 is represented by its manager, AH.

2.      It is undisputed Craftsman’s original quote was only an estimate when the truck was dropped off, and that Craftsman said the cost of repairs could increase after disassembly. AH argues Craftsman should have given him notice of cost increases and that Craftsman knew AH intended to pay for the truck’s repairs. Craftsman says AH delayed in responding to Craftsman and that Craftsman did not know AH intended to pay for the repairs himself. Craftsman says the truck’s registered owner, a rental business called Driving Force, authorized the repairs. Craftsman is represented by its manager, SM.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      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.

4.      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.

5.      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.

6.      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.

ISSUE

7.      The issue is whether Craftsman owes 125 the claimed $2,980 price difference between its original quote and what the truck’s repairs ultimately cost.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      In a civil claim like this one, the applicant 125 has the burden of proving its claims, 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. I note Craftsman chose not to submit any evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so.

9.      AH contacted Craftsman in early September 2020 about repairs to a 2020 Ford 150 truck, which I infer AH or AH’s business 125 had rented from Driving Force. 125’s claim is for $2,980. However, the difference between the January 12, 2021 payment of $13,240.67 and Craftsman’s September 2, 2020 $8,842.03 quote is $4,398.64. It is unclear how 125 arrives at the $2,980 figure. It is also unclear whether AH paid the invoice or if 125 did, or some other entity. There is only a credit card receipt in evidence for Craftsman’s invoice that was simply addressed to AH, with no company name.

10.   125’s essential argument is that while Craftsman did say the quoted price could increase, Craftsman never alerted AH of any cost increases. AH says he was continually trying to contact Craftsman. I find the evidence shows AH called Craftsman in November and December 2020. However, 125’s submitted evidence shows Craftsman was having trouble reaching AH in mid-September 2020 to get instructions about how to proceed.

11.   It is undisputed neither 125 nor AH own the truck. The parties agree the vehicle rental business Driving Force owns the truck.

12.   Most significantly, I find the evidence shows that after it could not reach AH in September, Craftsman contacted Driving Force. Driving Force undisputedly gave Craftsman instruction to proceed with the repairs.

13.   I acknowledge AH says Craftsman knew he was going to pay for the repairs, and so it should have sought his instructions. I find the evidence does not support this, because there is no evidence before me that AH told Craftsman he would be paying for the repairs. Craftsman’s initial quote went to a company called Hartstone, whose relationship to 125 or AH is unclear. The emails show Craftsman then forwarded its initial quote to AH, saying that it had been asked to do so. Yet, 125 is the applicant in this dispute, not AH. There is no evidence before me to support a conclusion that 125 had any contract with Craftsman. There is simply no evidence before me that AH was acting on 125’s behalf when dealing with Craftsman.

14.   On the evidence before me, I find Craftsman was entitled to receive instructions from Driving Force about repairs to its own truck. Driving Force is not a party to this dispute. I also find insufficient evidence that 125 has any standing to make the claim, given I have found it unproven 125 had any connection to the Craftsman repairs.

15.   Given the above, I dismiss 125’s claim. So, I do not need to address whether Craftsman overcharged for the truck’s repairs as alleged.

Fees and expenses

16.   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. Craftsman was successful but did not pay fees or claim expenses. As 125 was unsuccessful, I dismiss its claim for reimbursement of CRT fees and dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

17.   I dismiss 125’s claims and this dispute.