Date Issued: July 7, 2022

File: SC-2022-000062

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: D'Sign Guy & Gal Services ltd. V. Hiebert, 2022 BCCRT 779

Between:

D'SIGN GUY & GAL SERVICES LTD.

Applicant

And:

KYLE HIEBERT (Doing Business As ALBERNI MOBILE MECHANIC)

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	David Jiang

INTRODUCTION

1.    This dispute is about van repairs. The applicant, D'Sign Guy & Gal Services Ltd. (D’Sign), hired the respondent, Kyle Hiebert (doing business as Alberni Mobile Mechanic), to fix its van. I will refer to Kyle Hiebert by their full name because they did not provide a preferred pronoun or title when asked.

2.    D’Sign says it provided a parts deposit to Kyle Hiebert, but Kyle Hiebert decided to stop repairs, leaving the van parked on the street with its engine disassembled. D’Sign claims $1,849.44 as reimbursement for the deposit plus $60 for a towing bill.

3.    Kyle Hiebert denies liability. They say they were helping D’Sign only as a friend, and D’Sign is claiming for inappropriate amounts.

4.    D’Sign’s CEO, Bill Scott, represents it. Kyle Hiebert represents himself.

5.    For the reasons that follow, I find D’Sign has proven most of its claims and make the orders set out below.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6.    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.

7.    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. 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 in the interests of justice.

8.    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.

9.    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.

ISSUE

10. The issue in this dispute is whether Kyle Hiebert breached any contract for repairs, and if so, what remedy is appropriate.

BACKGROUND, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11. In a civil proceeding like this one, D’Sign as the applicant must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not). I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and arguments that I find relevant to provide context for my decision. Kyle Hiebert did not provide any submissions in this dispute, so I have relied on their filed Dispute Response. I note the Dispute Response was short and lacked detail. Kyle Hiebert also chose not to provide any evidence, though they were given the opportunity to do so.

12. I begin with the undisputed background. In August 2021, D’Sign asked Kyle Hiebert to repair its work van. The parties proceeded informally without a written contract or estimate. An August 25, 2021 cheque shows D’Sign paid Kyle Hiebert $1,849.44 in advance for parts.

13. Kyle Hiebert submits that they were helping D’Sign only as a friend. While I have found that the parties proceeded informally, I find it unproven that the parties wished to avoid entering into a contract. There is no legal principle that prevents friends from entering into binding contracts. I also find that the fact that D’Sign paid Kyle Hiebert is consistent with the existence of a contract.

14. Kyle Hiebert attempted to repair the van but was unsuccessful. Kyle Hiebert explained why they stopped work in subsequent November and December 2021 emails to D’Sign. They wrote that “the project was too big”, they were “swamped” and “didn’t have time”. Kyle Hiebert left the van on the street with some parts disassembled and the van not drivable.

15. D’Sign paid to have the van towed to another mechanic. A September 28, 2021 invoice shows that the mechanic charged $1,800 for additional parts and labour to fix the van.

Did Kyle Hiebert breach the parties’ contract for repairs?

16. Expert evidence is generally required to prove a professional’s work was below a reasonable standard: Bergen v. Guliker, 2015 BCCA 283. The 2 exceptions to this rule are when the deficiency is not technical in nature or where the work is obviously substandard. See Schellenberg v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 BCSC 196, at paragraph 112.

17. There is no expert evidence before me. Despite this, I find that D’Sign has met the burden of showing the repairs were below a reasonable standard. This is because it is undisputed Kyle Hiebert never completed the repairs and left the van with disassembled parts. Kyle Hiebert explained that they stopped work because they lacked time. I find this was unreasonable because by then D’Sign had spent money on van parts. Further, Kyle Hiebert did not say why it was reasonable for them to initially accept the work if they were so busy. Given these circumstances, I find Kyle Hiebert’s work was obviously substandard and breached the parties’ contract.

18. The question that remains is what damages are appropriate. Damages for breach of contract are generally intended to place the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been carried out by both parties: see Water’s Edge Resort Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 319 at paragraph 39.

19. In its submissions D’Sign claimed reimbursement for the mechanic’s repairs of $1,800 and $180 for towing bills. While I find this may be an appropriate measure of damages, D’Sign did not claim for this in its Dispute Notice. Instead, D’Sign claimed for a refund of the $1,849.44 it paid Kyle Hiebert for parts plus $60 for a towing bill.

20. I find the Dispute Notice claim for a refund would be a more appropriate measure of damages in this dispute. I find that if D’Sign wished to claim for the mechanic repairs it should have amended its Dispute Notice under the CRT rules. I find that a refund is appropriate because there is no indication that the purchased parts provided any benefit to D’Sign. Kyle Hiebert says they installed some of these parts on the van. However, when D’Sign took the van to a new mechanic, it had to pay a further $800 for parts (the remainder was for labour). There is no indication from the new mechanic that the previously purchased parts were helpful or necessary. Given this, I find it appropriate to order Kyle Hiebert to repay $1,849.44 to D’Sign.

21. D’Sign also claims $60 for towing the van to the new mechanic. However, it did not provide any evidence to show that it paid this amount. So, I decline to award it.

22. The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. D’Sign is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the damages award of $1,849.44 from August 25, 2021, the date of the payment, to the date of this decision. This equals $7.21.

23. 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 find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. The parties did not claim for any specific dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

24. Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order Kyle Hiebert to pay D’Sign a total of $1,981.65, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,849.44 as damages for breach of contract,

b.    $7.21 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

25. D’Sign is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

26. 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. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.