Date Issued: November 2, 2022

File: SC-2021-006471

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Shainbom v. Almatt Ventures Ltd., 2022 BCCRT 1203

Between:

CAROLINE SHAINBOM

 

Applicant

And:

ALMATT VENTURES LTD.

 

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the cost of vehicle repairs. The applicant, Caroline Shainbom, took her vehicle to the respondent, Almatt Ventures Ltd. (Almatt), to have a trailer adapter installed on her vehicle. Almatt operates as Cap-It Langley. Mrs. Shainbom says Almatt installed the trailer adapter incorrectly which she says damaged her vehicle’s electrical system. Mrs. Shainbom claims $4,965.80 for her vehicle’s repairs.

2.      Almatt says the vehicle’s damage was caused by faulty wiring in the trailer and not anything Almatt did for the trailer adapter installation.

3.      Mrs. Shainbom is self-represented. Almatt is represented by an employee or principal.

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). CRTA section 2 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.      CRTA section 39 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. 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.      CRTA section 42 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 whether Almatt damaged Mrs. Shainbom’s vehicle’s electrical system, and if so, whether she is entitled to the claimed $4,965.80 in repair costs.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

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

10.   In a joint Statement of Facts, the parties agree:

a.    Almatt operates 2 Cap-It franchises, one in Langley and the other in Surrey, BC.

b.    On June 5, 2021, Mrs. Shainbom brought her Ford Escape vehicle to Almatt’s Langley location.

c.    Mrs. Shainbom asked that Almatt install a 7-pin adapter to her vehicle, which she supplied, which was to be used to connect her tent trailer’s wiring to her vehicle’s wiring.

d.    On June 5, 2021, an Almatt technician installed the 7-pin adapter on Mrs. Shainbom’s vehicle.

e.    A few days later when Mrs. Shainbom connected the wires of her tent trailer to her vehicle via the 7-pin adapter, smoke came from the vehicle’s rear where the rewired adapter had been attached.

f.     Mrs. Shainbom brought the vehicle and trailer to Almatt’s Surrey location.

g.    The same technician inspected the vehicle, adapter, and trailer wiring.

h.    After Mrs. Shainbom connected her vehicle to the adapter, the right turn signal light on the vehicle was no longer working.

11.   It is undisputed that there was a power surge that caused the vehicle’s wiring to melt and which led to the necessary electrical system repairs. The issue in this dispute is what caused that power surge.

12.   Mrs. Shainbom makes 2 essential arguments. First, she says she clearly instructed Almatt that she wanted the 7-pin adapter to be installed on her vehicle together with the existing 4-pin adapter. Second, Mrs. Shainbom says the mechanic who fixed the electrical system says it was Almatt’s negligent installation of the 7-pin adapter that damaged the vehicle’s electrical system. In contrast, as noted above, Almatt says the trailer’s electrical system was faulty and caused the damage.

13.   I turn then to the key evidence before me. I pause to note that I find nothing turns on Mrs. Shainbom’s submitted photos, the statement from the tent trailer’s prior owner, or the allegations that Mrs. Shainbom’s spouse acknowledged the trailer’s poor condition. I find this dispute turns on expert evidence about the cause of the vehicle’s electrical damage, discussed below.

14.   In particular, Mrs. Shainbom submitted an October 12, 2021 opinion from Kevin Bland, a senior technical advisor for Cam Clark Ford Lincoln (Cam Clark). It is undisputed and I find Mr. Bland is qualified to give an expert opinion under the CRT’s rules on the issue of what caused the electrical damage to Mrs. Shainbom’s vehicle.

15.   Mr. Bland described Mrs. Shainbom’s June 23, 2021 delivery of her vehicle to Cam Clark because the right indicator light was not functioning correctly. This followed the smoke incident described above. Mr. Bland wrote that the wiring for the connector and harness had melted following a massive power surge that fed throughout the vehicle’s wiring system, which is undisputed.

16.   Significantly, Mr. Bland further wrote, “the type and magnitude of damage done to the wires connected to the harness could have only been the result of the “7 Way Connector” (adapter) being incorrectly wired.” Mr. Bland added that it appeared the white wire from the 7 way Connector was fed to a live power source instead of the car’s frame as a ground wire. Mr. Bland noted that the standard colour coding of electrical wires is not the same for trailer electrics. Mr. Bland concluded his opinion by saying once the vehicle’s electrical harness was replaced and a 7-way connector and 4-way connector were installed, Mrs. Shainbom had no further problems using the tent trailer.

17.   Almatt’s only submitted documentary evidence is an undated statement from its technician, Cory Lysiuk. I find Mr. Lysiuk is not entirely neutral, given they are undisputedly Almatt’s employee who did the installation work. So, I do not accept Mr. Lysiuk’s opinion as expert evidence under the CRT’s rules. However, even if I did, I would prefer Mr. Bland’s opinion. My reasons follow.

18.   First, Mr. Lysiuk says Mrs. Shainbom only brought her vehicle for the initial installation of the trailer adapter, and not the trailer itself. Mr. Lysiuk does not explain why this matters and so I find nothing turns on it. Mr. Lysiuk further says after the adapter’s installation the vehicle left the shop “working 100%”. However, this does not necessarily mean the adapter’s installation was not the cause of the vehicle’s electrical malfunction shortly after.

19.   Next, Mr. Lysiuk says that at the same time he found the heat damage, he re-tested the trailer wiring functions and found that there were “multiple issues” with several connections on the trailer harness. While Mr. Lysiuk says the trailer’s condition “is what caused the short in the vehicle harness”, Mr. Lysiuk expressly says he told Mrs. Shainbom to take the vehicle to Ford to “diagnose the issue on the vehicle side”. While Mr. Lysiuk says at the end of their opinion that they spoke to the Ford “tech”, he does not address Mr. Bland’s opinion. I place more weight on Mr. Bland’s direct opinion. Further, Almatt submits that on their inspection of the trailer “it was obvious there were several problems”, but there are no contemporaneous business records documenting this, such as photos or a repair inspection record. I also find Mr. Lysiuk did not adequately describe or explain the “several problems” and how they could have caused the vehicle’s electrical damage.

20.   On balance, I prefer Mr. Bland’s detailed description and explanation of how the vehicle’s electrical system was damaged. Mr. Lysiuk did not give an opinion about the “vehicle side”, which is the central issue in this dispute. I find it more likely that the vehicle’s electrical system was damaged because Almatt “incorrectly wired” the 7-pin adapter. I find this means Mrs. Shainbom has proved Almatt breached the applicable standard of care and that this breach caused her claimed loss. In short, I find Almatt was negligent and is responsible for her vehicle’s electrical damage.

21.   I turn then to the claimed damages. Mrs. Shainbom claims reimbursement of $4,965.80, which is the amount of Cam Clark’s repair invoice in evidence. Almatt does not dispute the amount of this invoice and I find it clearly relates to the damage that resulted from Almatt’s proven negligence. I order Almatt to pay Mrs. Shainbom the claimed $4,965.80.

22.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Mrs. Shainbom is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the COIA on the $4,965.80. Calculated from Cam Clark’s June 23, 2021 invoice date to this date of this decision, this interest equals $51.75. I note CRT fees and COIA interest are exclusive of the CRT’s $5,000 monetary limit in small claims matters.

23.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Mrs. Shainbom was successful, I find she is entitled to reimbursement of $200 in paid CRT fees. She did not claim dispute-related expenses. As Almatt was unsuccessful, I dismiss its claim for reimbursement of CRT fees. Neither party claims dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

24.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order Almatt to pay Mrs. Shainbom a total of $5,217.55, broken down as follows:

a.    $4,965.80 in damages,

b.    $51.75 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $200 in CRT fees.

25.   Mrs. Shainbom 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.