Date Issued: September 16, 2022

File: SC-2022-000522

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Xue v. Kingdom Langley Project Limited Partnership, 2022 BCCRT 1025

Between:

LONG XUE

Applicant

And:

KINGDOM LANGLEY PROJECT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Leah Volkers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about responsibility for vehicle damage.

2.      The applicant, Long Xue, says his vehicle was damaged by a new median installed by the respondent, Kingdom Langley Project Limited Partnership (Kingdom) on 65^th Avenue in Langley, British Columbia. Mr. Xue says Kingdom failed to put up temporary traffic signs to identify the new median and warn motorists of a potential hazard. Mr. Xue claims a total of $4,999.52 in damages.

3.      Kingdom says the median was constructed in accordance with the approved civil drawings, and it followed all required plans during construction. Kingdom says it is Mr. Xue’s responsibility to take care of his own vehicle while driving. Kingdom denies that it is responsible for any of Mr. Xue’s claimed damages.

4.      Mr. Xue is self-represented. Kingdom is represented by an authorized employee.

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. 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.

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.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is to what extent, if any, Kingdom is responsible to pay Mr. Xue’s claimed damages.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Xue must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not). Kingdom did not provide any documentary evidence in this dispute, despite being provided with the opportunity to do so. I have read all the parties’ submissions and Mr. Xue’s evidence but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

11.   Mr. Xue says his vehicle hit the newly built median on October 12, 2021. Kingdom does not dispute this. I find dash cam video from Mr. Xue’s vehicle shows the left-side of Mr. Xue’s vehicle hitting the median on a dark and rainy night. While the dash cam video was dated October 12, 2020, Mr. Xue says the year listed is incorrect, and the video was from October 12, 2021 when the accident occurred. The accident’s date is undisputed, and I accept Mr. Xue’s explanation for the video’s date discrepancy. So, I find the video shows the October 12, 2021 accident.

12.   I find the dash cam video also shows that the median did not have any temporary or permanent signage when the accident occurred. Kingdom says that the median was constructed in accordance with safety requirements, but did not say whether it installed temporary signage. Mr. Xue says the median changed the road marks and the median was not obvious at night, especially on a rainy night. As noted, Mr. Xue says Kingdom is responsible for his claimed damages because it did not install any temporary signage to warn motorists of the new median.

13.   To establish negligence, Mr. Xue must prove that Kingdom owed him a duty of care, breached the required standard of care, and that the breach caused Mr. Xue to suffer damages (see Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27).

14.   I accept that Kingdom owed Mr. Xue a duty of care. I find the question here is whether Kingdom breached the applicable standard of care by failing to install temporary signs on the new median. Mr. Xue says it is common sense to put signs up where the traffic pattern changes. I agree that as a matter of common sense, significant changes to traffic patterns or road configurations should be signed. However, I find it is also common sense that not every single change to a traffic pattern or road configuration, regardless of how minor, must be signed. Here, I find that whether the new median was a traffic pattern change that required temporary signage is not obvious. That is, the new median is not clearly a significant change that requires signage. Therefore, I find that whether temporary signage was required for the new median is not obvious, and is a technical question outside of ordinary knowledge. So, I find expert opinion evidence is necessary to determine whether temporary signage was required (See Bergen v. Guliker, 2015 BCCA 285).

15.   Mr. Xue provided a December 16, 2021 email from a Township of Langley (Langley) support clerk to Mr. Xue. The email said that when “new infrastructure” was installed, Kingdom was required to notify Langley when it was ready for the “applicable signage”. Once Langley had been notified, the sign was scheduled for installation, and Kingdom was responsible for providing temporary “signage/delineator/cones etc.” to identify the new median and warn motorists of a potential hazard until Langley installed the signage. The email also said Langley installed median signage on October 19 and 20, 2021. I find the email from Langley is not expert evidence and does not comply with the CRT rules for expert evidence. Further, while the email suggests that Langley and Kingdom may have agreed that Kingdom would install temporary signs, I find it does not prove that Kingdom breached any standard of care by failing to do so. Langley is not a party to this dispute.

16.   There is no other evidence, expert or otherwise, to show whether Kingdom breached the applicable standard of care by failing to install temporary signage on the new median.

17.   As noted, Mr. Xue has the burden of proving his claims. I find Mr. Xue has not proved Kingdom breached the applicable standard of care by failing to install temporary signs on the new median. Therefore, it is unnecessary for me to consider whether Kingdom’s alleged breach caused Mr. Xue’s claimed damages, or whether Mr. Xue proved his claimed damages. I dismiss Mr. Xue’s claims.

CRT fees and expenses

18.   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. As Mr. Xue was unsuccessful, I dismiss his fee claim. Kingdom did not pay CRT fees and neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses, so I award none.

ORDER

19.   I dismiss Mr. Xue’s claims and this dispute.