Date Issued: October 14, 2022

File: SC-2022-002627

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Arheam v. Imo, 2022 BCCRT 1127

BETWEEN:

FAYEZ ARHEAM

APPLICANT

AND:

ANYA REVEAL IMO

 

RESPONDENT

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrea Ritchie, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about personal loans between roommates. The applicant, Fayez Arheam, says he made various loans to the respondent, Anya Reveal Imo, for rent, food, furniture, and other living expenses. Mr. Arheam says Mr. Imo has failed to pay him back as agreed. Mr. Arheam claims $4,344.50, the amount he says remains unpaid.

2.      Mr. Imo admits to taking loans from Mr. Arheam for rent and a bed, and disputes the amount owed.

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. Some of the evidence in this dispute amounts to a “he said, he said” scenario. 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. The assessment of what is the most likely account depends on its harmony with the rest of the evidence. 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.

Harassment

8.      In his submissions, Mr. Imo claims Mr. Arheam constantly harassed him at his job, as well as harassed his friends and family. Mr. Imo did not claim a specific set-off or file a counterclaim for damages for the alleged harassment. Additionally, in British Columbia there is no recognized tort of harassment (see: Total Credit Recovery v. Roach, 2007 BCSC 530). So, I make no findings about the allegations of harassment.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is to what extent Mr. Imo owes Mr. Arheam for unpaid personal loans.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Mr. Arheam must prove his 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.

11.   The parties were roommates. As noted, Mr. Arheam says he made various loans to Mr. Imo for rent, furniture, food, and utilities, among other things. Mr. Arheam says these loans totaled $6,534. He says the parties agreed Mr. Imo would start paying $300 per month towards the loans, later increasing to $500 per month. Mr. Arheam says Mr. Imo failed to increase his payments as agreed, so he seeks payment of the outstanding balance, which Mr. Arheam says is $4,344.50.

12.   Mr. Imo admits to receiving some loans from Mr. Arheam but denies owing the amount claimed. Mr. Imo says he did receive loans for rent and the purchase of his bed, for a total of $4,953. However, Mr. Imo says he bought his own groceries, linens, and paid his own share of the utilities. As for furniture, Mr. Imo says he helped Mr. Arheam source a new sofa and dressers, but that Mr. Arheam purchased those for himself and still has possession of them or sold them and kept the proceeds himself. Mr. Imo denies owing Mr. Arheam for any furniture other than the bed.

13.   The parties spent some time in their submissions talking about a negotiated payment plan. The parties disagree on when Mr. Imo’s payments were supposed to increase from $300 to $500. However, I find nothing turns on this disagreement as it is undisputed Mr. Imo stopped paying anything to Mr. Arheam as of April 2022.

14.   In support of his claim, Mr. Arheam produced a list of purchases and their value, which he says lists all the times Mr. Arheam bought things for Mr. Imo. Mr. Arheam refers to this list as the “contract” between the parties, however the document is not signed, and was unilaterally created by Mr. Arheam. In any event, although Mr. Arheam claims the items total $6,543, I find the list’s actual total is $6,346.50.

15.   Mr. Arheam also provided copies of his bank statements showing various point-of-sale purchases at restaurants and retail stores. These statements do not show exactly what was purchased. Mr. Arheam did not provide any receipts or invoices for the items he says he purchased for Mr. Imo, and Mr. Arheam admits some of the purchases were to be shared between the parties. As noted, Mr. Imo denies Mr. Arheam purchased these things for him, and says he paid his own way except for rent and the bed.

16.   There is no written contract between the parties, nor any correspondence in evidence that shows any agreement between the parties about payment for the various listed items. As noted, Mr. Arheam must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities. On the evidence before me I am unable to determine whether Mr. Arheam’s purchases were for Mr. Imo, or for himself. Mr. Imo denies the purchases were for him, so without more, I do not find it was more likely than not that Mr. Arheam made the purchases as loans to Mr. Imo.

17.   So, I find the only proven loans are for rent and the bed, which total $4,395. As Mr. Imo has undisputedly paid $2,002 towards the loans, I find there is a $2,393 outstanding balance. I find these loans were demand loans, meaning loans with no specific due date. Demand loans become due when the lender demands payment. Neither party says when Mr. Arheam first demanded repayment, so I find the latest he did was April 15, 2022, the day Mr. Arheam filed his application for dispute resolution. I find Mr. Imo must pay Mr. Arheam the outstanding $2,393.

18.   Because the parties did not agree to an interest rate on the loans, the Court Order Interest Act applies. I find Mr. Arheam is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,393. Calculated from April 15, 2022, a date I find reasonable in the circumstances, to the date of this decision, this equals $14.09.

19.   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. As Mr. Arheam was partially successful, I find that he is entitled to reimbursement of half his paid tribunal fees, for a total of $87.50. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

20.   Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent, Anya Reveal Imo, to pay the applicant, Fayez Arheam, a total of $2,494.59, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,393 in debt,

b.    $14.09 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $87.50 in tribunal fees.

21.   Mr. Arheam is also entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

22.   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.