Date Issued: March 24, 2022

File: SC-2021-006313

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Laitinen v. Mid-West Moving and Storage Services Inc., 2022 BCCRT 329

Between:

JAMES LAITINEN

 

Applicant

And:

MID-WEST MOVING AND STORAGE SERVICES INC.

 

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about an allegedly unauthorized credit card charge. The applicant James Laitinen asked the respondent moving company, Mid-West Moving and Storage Services Inc. (Mid-West), for a quote. Mr. Laitinen says “during the quotation process”, Mid-West gathered his information and credit card information. Mr. Laitinen says Mid-West charged $500 to his credit card without his authorization. He ultimately never used Mid-West’s services and seeks a refund of the $500. Mr. Laitinen also claims $1,192.92 in legal fees for his efforts trying to resolve this matter with Mid-West and $880 for his own time spent. His claims total $2,430.

2.      Mid-West says the $500 was paid as a deposit and that at the time of booking it told Mr. Laitinen the deposit would be non-refundable if Mr. Laitinen cancelled the booking. Mid-West says Mr. Laitinen cancelled the booking and so his deposit is non-refundable and it owes nothing.

3.      Mr. Laitinen is self-represented. Mid-West is represented by an employee or principal.

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.      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. In some respects, both parties to this dispute call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other. 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. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. 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.      CRTA section 42 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.

8.      Mid-West submitted evidence late, after the CRT’s deadline. I do not allow this late evidence, a copy of Mid-West’s June 11, 2021 email to Mr. Laitinen, simply because it is a duplicate of what Mr. Laitinen had already submitted on time. I address this email in my decision below.

ISSUES

9.      The issues in this dispute are whether Mid-West was authorized to charge $500 to Mr. Laitinen’s credit card and whether that $500 is refundable or not.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Laitinen must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

11.   At the outset, I note Mr. Laitinen emphasizes negative reviews about Mid-West filed with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). I place no weight on this evidence as I find it does not assist me in determining whether Mid-West was authorized to charge Mr. Laitinen’s credit card $500 and whether that $500 is refundable or not.

12.   I turn to the relevant background facts and chronology.

13.   On June 11, 2021, Mid-West emailed Mr. Laitinen “to confirm” his booking for a June 25, 2021 move, which set out its quote based on weight. There is no other booking request or confirmation before me. However, as discussed below I find the evidence shows that Mr. Laitinen had earlier asked Mid-West for a quote and at that time provided his information including his credit card number. It is undisputed that before Mr. Laitinen received the June 11 email detailed below, Mid-West charged his credit card $500.

14.   I do not accept Mid-West’s unsupported assertion that it told Mr. Laitinen “up front” that there would be a $500 non-refundable deposit charged if he cancelled the move. My reasons follow.

15.   First, I find Mid-West’s June 11 email is internally inconsistent on the central issue of the $500 charge. I say this because Mid-West first said, “Thank you for your Visa, a non refundable $500 deposit will be deducted off your final balance”. The email then immediately followed with this statement (quote below reproduced as written):

Please do not forget to copy and paste the following statement into a reply email to me:

I, _____________ hereby authorize [Mid-West] to charge my Visacard ending in [###] in the amount of $500 for the deposit on my upcoming move. This is the only charge I authorize on this credit card at this time.

16.   It is undisputed Mr. Laitinen never returned the requested authorization to charge his credit card. Instead, he immediately responded that June 11 morning saying he did not want to hire Mid-West, because he wanted a fixed price quote not a move based on weight. So, it is also undisputed that Mr. Laitinen had no “final balance” because Mid-West never did the move.

17.   Second, I agree with Mr. Laitinen that if he had already authorized the Visa charge as Mid-West alleges, it made no sense for Mid-West to expressly seek that authorization again in the June 11 email.

18.   On balance, I find Mr. Laitinen never agreed to give Mid-West a $500 non-refundable deposit. While Mid-West says it informed Mr. Laitinen of the requirement “up front”, it provided no evidence of this apart from the June 11, 2021 email. Again, I find the June 11 email supports Mr. Laitinen’s position that he had never authorized the $500 charge and when asked for his authorization he cancelled the move. I find there is no evidence to support Mid-West’s assertion that Mr. Laitinen ever authorized the $500 charge and no evidence that he ever agreed that a paid deposit would be non-refundable.

19.   Since I find Mr. Laitinen never authorized or agreed to a $500 deposit, I find Mid-West must refund it to him.

20.   I note Mid-West also submits that if Mr. Laitinen wanted his $500 deposit back “all he needed to do is call his credit card and dispute the charge”. While that may have been an option for Mr. Laitinen, he was not required to pursue it. I find he was entitled to pursue this civil claim against Mid-West.

21.   I turn then to Mr. Laitinen’s claim for reimbursement of legal fees. In the August 24, 2021 Dispute Notice, he sought reimbursement of $1,050 but in submissions increased this to $1,192.92. A June 23, 2021 invoice from his lawyer shows a $1,191.92 total. I infer the $1 difference is a typo. Ordinarily, I would not consider an increased claim without an Amended Dispute Notice. Given my conclusion below, nothing turns on it.

22.   The claimed legal fees arose before the CRT dispute began, so I find they are not properly dispute-related expenses. Even if there was a legal basis to award recovery of these fees, I find it unreasonable that Mr. Laitinen spent $1,191.92 in legal fees to recover $500. The CRT fees payable to obtain this decision were only $125 and the CRT’s process is designed for lay litigants. Mr. Laitinen represented himself in this process. Further, the lawyer’s demand letter was simple and only a few paragraphs. I do not find retaining legal counsel was reasonably necessary here, and I find it would be inappropriate to order recovery of the associated fees. I dismiss the legal fees claim.

23.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Mr. Laitinen is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the COIA on the $500. Calculated from June 11, 2021 to the date of this decision, this interest equals $1.76.

24.   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. As Mr. Laitinen was partially successful in his claim, I find he is entitled to reimbursement of $62.50, which is half his paid CRT fees. Mr. Laitinen also claims $880 for his 8 hours of his time spent “to file complaint, emails, follow-ups to BBB, legal meetings”. Again, I find retaining a lawyer was not reasonably necessary here. I find the BBB process unrelated to this CRT dispute. As for time spent filing this CRT dispute, which is really the only potential dispute-related expense, I find this time would be minimal. In any event, the CRT rules say compensation for ‘time spent’ is usually not awarded except in extraordinary cases. This is a simple debt claim and is not extraordinary. I dismiss the $880 expense claim.

ORDERS

25.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order Mid-West to pay Mr. Laitinen a total of $564.26, broken down as follows:

a.    $500 in debt,

b.    $1.76 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $62.50 in CRT fees.

26.   Mr. Laitinen is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable. I dismiss Mr. Laitinen’s remaining claims.

27.   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.

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