Date Issued: July 7, 2022

File: SC-2021-007078

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Rahnama v. Tsoi, 2022 BCCRT 781

BETWEEN:

BEHGOL RAHNAMA

 

APPLICANT

AND:

REBECCA PING TSOI

 

RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrea Ritchie, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about towing expenses. The applicant, Behgol Rahnama, rented a parking space from the respondent, Rebecca Ping Tsoi. The applicant says the respondent had her car towed improperly, and seeks reimbursement of $758 for towing expenses, transportation fees, title search expenses, and compensation for time spent.

2.      The respondent says the applicant improperly parked her car in the parking space after the parties’ agreement had ended. The respondent denies owing the applicant any money.

3.      The parties are each self-represented.

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 parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says that 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.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says that 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.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is to what extent, if any, the respondent owes the applicant $758 in expenses for having the applicant’s car towed.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only addressed those necessary to explain my decision. The respondent did not provide any evidence, despite being given the opportunity to do so.

10.   The parties agreed the respondent would rent out their parking space to the applicant from March 15 to August 15, 2021. The applicant says on August 15, 2021, the respondent improperly had her car towed, when she was still entitled to park there. The applicant wants to be reimbursed for all expenses related to the towing, for a total of $758.

11.   In their Dispute Response, the respondent said the applicant was only entitled to use the parking space until 10:00 am on August 15, 2021, after which time it was to be turned over to a new user. In their later submissions, the respondent says the applicant was supposed to vacate the space by 8:00 am. In any event, the respondent says the applicant knew the space was being transferred to a new user, and that they tried to contact the applicant multiple times, but got no response. The respondent says the car was not towed until the afternoon, several hours after the parties’ agreement ended.

12.   A copy of the parties’ contract in evidence shows the applicant agreed to pay $200 cash per month in exchange for parking in the respondent’s residential parking space. The contract states the lease started on March 15, 2021 and was to end on August 15, 2021. There is no specific end time.

13.   On balance, I find the applicant was still entitled to use the parking space on August 15, 2021, pursuant to the parties’ contract. The evidence shows that around 9 to 9:30 am the respondent asked her building concierge to call a tow truck to have the applicant’s vehicle removed from the space, which was done about a half hour later. Despite the respondent’s assertions, there is no evidence they told the applicant a new user was going to be taking over the space or that they tried to contact the applicant. There is also no indication, in the contract or otherwise, of a time the applicant had to vacate the space by on August 15, 2021. I find the respondent breached the parties’ contract by having the applicant’s vehicle towed.

14.   So, how much compensation is the applicant entitled to? The towing receipt in evidence is for $127.26, which I find the respondent must reimburse. Additionally, I find the respondent is responsible for reimbursing the applicant $11.98 in Uber fees she had to pay to get to her towed car.

15.   The remaining amount of the applicant’s $758 is for her “time spent” dealing with the towing. The applicant did not provide any evidence about how long she spent doing various activities related to the towing incident, or any evidence about the value of her time. Generally, time spent by a party is not recoverable as damages, though it may be recoverable as “costs” (see: Rossmore Enterprises Ltd. v. Ingram, 2013 BCSC 894 at paragraph 48). The CRT does not award costs, but time spent may be considered a dispute-related expense.

16.   The CRT rules say that compensation for “time spent” is usually not awarded except in extraordinary cases, which I find does not apply here. I dismiss the applicant’s claim for time spent.

17.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the COIA on the towing and related expenses ($139.24), from August 15, 2021 to the date of this decision. This equals $0.59.

18.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. I see no reason to deviate from that general rule. As the applicant was successful, I award reimbursement of the $125 she paid in tribunal fees. I also award her $17.96 in dispute-related expenses for a title search.

ORDERS

19.   Within 21 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent, Rebecca Ping Tsoi, to pay the applicant, Beghol Rahnama, a total of $282.39, broken down as follows:

a.    $139.24 in damages,

b.    $0.59 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act,

c.    $125 in tribunal fees; and

d.    $17.56 in dispute-related expenses.

20.   The applicant is also entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

21.   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.