Date Issued: September 29, 2022

File: SC-2021-007286

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Ossanlou v. Pattria (dba Highlands Cleaners), 2022 BCCRT 1070

Between:

MARYAM OSSANLOU

Applicant

And:

ANGELA PATTRIA (Doing Business As HIGHLANDS CLEANERS)

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Nav Shukla

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a dispute about a damaged fur stole. The applicant, Maryam Ossanlou, says the respondent, Angela Pattria (Doing Business As Highlands Cleaners) destroyed her fur stole that she had left with Highlands Cleaners for cleaning. She claims $5,000 for the damaged stole.

2.      The respondent does not deny destroying the applicant’s fur stole but disputes that the stole was worth $5,000.

3.      The applicant represents herself in this dispute. The respondent is represented by an authorized employee.

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.      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.

6.      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.

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 what amount does the respondent owe the applicant for the damaged fur stole?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

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

10.   The undisputed facts are as follows. On September 17, 2019, the applicant took her fur stole and a raincoat to Highlands Cleaners to be cleaned. She returned on September 28, 2019 to pick up her items and learned that the fur stole was destroyed due to the respondent’s cleaning machine malfunctioning.

11.   As noted, the respondent does not deny that the fur stole was destroyed in the machine. It is undisputed that the fur stole was damaged beyond repair. However, the respondent says that the fur stole is worth less than the applicant claims. The respondent says that she offered the applicant a fair settlement based on her dry cleaning policies, but the applicant has denied the offer.

12.   The respondent did not submit any dry cleaning policies as evidence. She did provide a picture of what looks to be the back of a dry cleaning receipt that includes conditions. These conditions state that the respondent cannot assume responsibility for inherent weaknesses or defects in materials. Here, there is no evidence that the fur stole had any inherent weaknesses or defects when the applicant dropped it off. Rather, it is undisputed that the damage was caused by the respondent’s machine. So, I find these conditions do not limit the respondent’s liability for the damaged stole.

13.   I now consider what amount the respondent must pay the applicant for damaging her fur stole. The applicant relies on an October 4, 2019 appraisal by TT, a furrier at Hudson’s Bay. In the appraisal, TT described the fur stole as a natural violet male mink stole made out of approximately 7 to 9 top quality male mink skins. The appraisal notes TT examined the pictures provided by the applicant for the stole and determined its value. TT estimated the fur stole’s replacement value was $5,000, exclusive of any taxes.

14.   Other than noting they are a furrier, TT did not state their qualifications in the appraisal as required for expert evidence under CRT rule 8.3(2). However, in her submissions, the applicant says TT has over 30 years of experience as a furrier. The respondent says that she does not question TT’s expertise. So, I find TT is an expert in fur valuation and accept the appraisal as expert evidence under CRT rule 8.3.

15.   Though the respondent does not dispute TT’s expertise, she disagrees with the stole’s $5,000 appraised value. The respondent says that since the applicant did not provide a proof of purchase, TT’s appraisal does not have merit. The respondent also says that since TT did not examine the fur stole itself and based their appraisal on pictures and a description provided by the applicant, the appraisal is not reliable.

16.   The applicant says that she received the fur stole as a gift in 2005 which is why she is unable to provide a proof of purchase. She also says that TT could not have examined the fur stole in its original condition since it was destroyed by the respondent. The applicant says that she took the destroyed stole along with the stole’s pre-destruction photos for the appraisal. She further says that TT”s evaluation was not based on her description of the stole but rather TT determined the description on their own after examining the destroyed stole and the photographs.

17.   The respondent did not provide her own appraisal for the fur stole. However, she did provide screen shots of fur items listed for sale in support of her argument that the applicant’s fur stole is worth less than $5,000. Based on the descriptions in the screen shots, the screen shots include a cross mink fur stole wrap for $2,200, a vintage beige mink fur wrap shawl for $129.99, a “real” purple mink fur bolero for $1,102.01, and a vintage mink fur stole for $540.

18.   The applicant also provided screen shots of fur items listed for sale. These include various mink coats ranging from $4,999.94 to $7,874.94.

19.   On balance, I find TT’s appraisal is the most reliable evidence before me of the stole’s value. I say this because I am unable to determine based on the screen shot listings how the fur items in those listings compare to the applicant’s fur stole in terms of quality. Further, since the respondent did not obtain her own appraisal, TT’s appraisal is the only appraisal evidence before me. Based on TT’s appraisal, I find the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that it would cost her $5,000 to replace her fur stole. So, I order the respondent to pay the applicant $5,000 for the damaged fur stole.

20.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $5,000 from September 28, 2019, the date she learned the stole was destroyed, to the date of this decision. This equals $140.18.

21.   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 $200 in CRT fees. The applicant also claims $56.00 in dispute-related expenses for the fur stole’s appraisal. Based on the appraisal receipt in evidence, and since I relied on the appraisal, I find $56.00 reasonable and allow it. Since the respondent was unsuccessful, I dismiss her claim for reimbursement of her paid CRT fees.

ORDERS

22.   Within 21 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent, Angela Pattria (Doing Business As Highlands Cleaners), to pay the applicant, Maryam Ossanlou, a total of $5,396.18, broken down as follows:

a.    $5,000 for the damaged fur stole,

b.    $140.18 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $256, for $200 in CRT fees and $56 for dispute-related expenses.

23.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest under the COIA, as applicable.

24.   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.