Date Issued: February 4, 2022

File: SC-2021-002250

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Mabley v. Vankoughnett, 2022 BCCRT 135

Between:

JENNIFER MABLEY

Applicant

And:

STEVEN VANKOUGHNETT

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about unpaid rent and utilities. The applicant, Jennifer Mabley, says the respondent, Steven Vankoughnett, owes money under a signed a lease. She claims $5,000 for unpaid rent and utilities.

2.      Mr. Vankoughnett disagrees. He says Mrs. Mabley forged his signature on the lease. He also says he rarely stayed at the rental unit.

3.      The parties are self-represented.

4.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss Mrs. Mabley’s claims as unproven.

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). 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.

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. Some of the submissions in this dispute amounts to a “she said, he said” scenario. The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly where there is conflict, cannot be determined solely by the test of whose personal demeanour in a courtroom or tribunal proceeding appears to be the most truthful. The assessment of what is the most likely account depends on its harmony with the rest of the evidence. 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. I also note that in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, at paragraphs 32 to 38, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized the CRT’s process and found that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is an issue.

7.      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.

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

9.      In general, residential tenancy disputes are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). However, the RTB declines jurisdiction over roommate disputes. The parties say that they previously dated and did not say that the RTA applies to this dispute. Mr. Vankoughnett also referred to a third-party landlord. So, I find this is a roommate dispute that is within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are as follows:

a.    Did Mr. Vankoughnett sign a lease?

b.    If so, did Mr. Vankoughnett breach the parties’ lease?

BACKGROUND, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant Mrs. Mabley must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities. This means more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer only to the evidence and arguments that I find relevant to provide context for my decision. I note that Mr. Vankoughnett did not provide evidence though he had the opportunity to do so.

12.   Mrs. Mabley says Mr. Vankoughnett signed and breached a lease. However, she did not provide a copy of it. I note that parties are told by CRT staff to provide all relevant evidence. I find the lease would be a relevant and key document in this dispute.

13.   Ms. Mabley also did not describe the lease’s terms. For example, she did not describe the start date, its duration, or how much Mr. Vankoughnett agreed to pay monthly for rent or utilities. Mrs. Mabley claims for $5,000 but provided no breakdown of this amount. She also said Mr. Vankoughnett moved out with “zero notice” but did not say how much notice was required under the lease.

14.   As noted above, Mr. Vankoughnett denies signing any lease or living with Mrs. Mabley for any significant period of time. He says he paid Mrs. Mabley’s landlord a “couple times” to help her. He denies doing so as part of any legal obligation.

15.   Mrs. Mabley provided only 1 document as evidence. It was an Equifax printout about an unnamed person’s credit history from 2010 to 2017. Mrs. Mabley did not say whose credit history was shown or why it was relevant to this dispute. From my review, I find it irrelevant to proving Mrs. Mabley’s claims. I further note that the printout covers a period of time that is outside the 2-year limitation period provided for under section 6 of the Limitation Act. So, even if it showed a debt owed by Mr. Vankoughnett to Mrs. Mabley, the document suggests those claims would be out of time.

16.   In summary, I find Mrs. Mabley provided insufficient evidence to prove her claims. As Mrs. Mabley bears the burden of proof, I dismiss her claims as unproven.

17.   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 in this case not to follow that general rule. I dismiss Mrs. Mabley’s claims for reimbursement. The parties did not claim for any specific dispute-related expenses, so I order none.

ORDER

18.   I dismiss Mrs. Mabley’s claims and this dispute.