Date Issued: December 9, 2022

File: SC-2022-000409

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: 0935079 B.C. Ltd. v. BC Pro Towing Ltd., 2022 BCCRT 1326

Between:

0935079 B.C. LTD.

Applicant

And:

BC PRO TOWING LTD.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kristin Gardner

INTRODUCTION

1.      This small claims dispute is about vehicle damage.

2.      The applicant, 0935079 B.C. Ltd. (093), says the respondent towing company, BC Pro Towing Ltd. (Pro Towing), damaged its truck when it towed the truck to a repair shop. 093 says it incurred $5,719.85 in repair costs for the damage Pro Towing caused, and it was unable to use the truck for 6 weeks during repairs. 093 limited its claim to $5,000, which is the small claims monetary limit for the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).

3.      In its Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding, Pro Towing said that 093 waited 3 months to advise it of the alleged vehicle damage, in which time it said 093 could have damaged the truck itself. I infer that Pro Towing denies any responsibility for the alleged damage.

4.      093 is represented by its owner, Alexandre Bouchard. Pro Towing is represented by its owner, Pardeep Dhillon.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      These are the CRT’s formal written reasons. 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 whether Pro Towing damaged 093’s truck, and if so, whether Pro Towing is responsible to pay $5,000 for the truck’s repairs.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant 093 must prove its claims 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. I note that Pro Towing did not submit any documentary evidence or written submissions, despite having the opportunity to do so.

11.   It is undisputed that on July 23, 2021, Pro Towing towed 093’s Ford E-450 truck about 100 kilometers from where the truck broke down, to 093’s preferred mechanic, TA. 093 says it called Pro Towing because the truck’s engine was overheating.

12.   TA’s invoices in evidence show that it diagnosed the overheating problem and replaced the truck’s thermostat and radiator. The invoices also show TA performed other maintenance and repair on the truck, including replacing the rear brakes and engine control unit. 093 says that after completing this work, TA performed a test drive and found a “limited” ability to change gears or “attain any speed”. 093 says these issues were not present before Pro Towing towed the truck to TA.

13.   TA’s invoices show it spent 5 hours attempting to diagnose a “shift solenoid issue”, by checking the transmission wiring and replacing various parts, none of which fixed the problem. The evidence shows that TA ultimately removed the truck’s transmission and sent it to a transmission specialist, ATAC. TA charged 093 $5,107.01 plus tax for a remanufactured transmission and its installation.

14.   093 says it did not know what caused the transmission damage and did not initially realize that Pro Towing was responsible. It says that in about October 2021, the truck had to be towed again for unrelated reasons. A different towing company attended and advised 093 that it had to disconnect the driveshaft to avoid straining the truck’s transmission while towing it. 093 says it was only when it received this information that it discovered Pro Towing was likely responsible for the transmission damage.

15.   093 submitted a November 25, 2021 email from ATAC’s general manager, MP, that stated the transmission’s main failure was to the rear planetary assembly, located near the transmission’s back side. MP stated that if the truck was towed from the front while the engine was off and the driveshaft was still installed, it was “very possible” that the towing caused the damage. This is because the rear wheels would be running the transmission, but the engine would not be operating the oil pump to lubricate the transmission’s circuits. MP stated that any time a rear-wheel-drive vehicle is being towed from the front, its driveshaft must be removed at the differential, or its back wheel put on dollies, to avoid transmission damage.

16.   While MP did not specifically set out their education and training background, I find their position at a professional transmission repair company qualifies them to provide expert evidence in this CRT proceeding. Noting that Pro Towing does not specifically dispute MP’s qualifications, I accept MP’s email as expert evidence.

17.   093 also provided a November 23, 2021 email statement from Mr. Bouchard’s business partner, JH, who was present when Pro Towing towed the truck. JH stated the truck initially needed towing because it was overheating. JH also stated that he watched what Pro Towing was doing the whole time, and he did not observe Pro Towing disconnect the driveshaft before it started towing the truck from the front.

18.   In a November 15, 2021 email, AV, who I infer is a TA employee or principal, stated they observed that the truck’s driveshaft was still connected when 093’s truck came off the tow truck on July 23, 2021. AV also stated they would expect the driveshaft to be disconnected while being towed to prevent possible transmission damage.

19.   As noted, in its Dispute Response Pro Towing took issue with how long 093 waited to advise it of the transmission damage. All of TA’s invoices were dated September 9, 2021, which I find was when TA completed the transmission repair work. I also accept 093’s explanation that it did not discover Pro Towing might have been responsible for the transmission damage until it learned about the proper towing method for its truck in October 2021 and made further inquiries with TA and ATAC. Overall, I find there is no evidence to support Pro Towing’s speculative submission that 093 caused the transmission damage itself after Pro Towing towed the truck.

20.   Rather, I find the weight of the evidence suggests that Pro Towing caused the truck’s transmission damage. I accept JH’s evidence that the truck was only overheating and was not experiencing any transmission issues before Pro Towing towed it. This is supported by TA’s invoices that show it repaired the overheating issue before discovering the shift solenoid problem. Further, both JH and TA stated that Pro Towing did not disconnect the driveshaft before towing the truck from the front for approximately 100 kilometres. Pro Towing did not provide any evidence to contradict this. I accept MP’s evidence that towing the truck with the driveshaft connected, its rear wheels on the ground, and the engine off, can cause the damage that occurred.

21.   For these reasons, I am satisfied that Pro Towing’s towing method likely caused the transmission damage. Therefore, I find Pro Towing is responsible for 093’s transmission repair costs.

22.   As noted, I find TA’s invoices show 093 incurred over $5,000 in repair costs related to the transmission damage. Noting that Pro Towing did not dispute them, I find TA’s invoices were reasonable, and so I order Pro Towing to pay 093 the claimed $5,000.

23.   Given I have already awarded 093 the CRT’s monetary limit, I do not have to consider 093’s submission that it was unable to use its truck for 6 weeks while the transmission repairs were completed.

24.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I note the CRT’s small claims monetary limit is exclusive of COIA interest and CRT fees, discussed below. I find 093 is entitled to pre-judgment COIA interest on the $5,000 from January 7, 2022, the deadline 093 provided Pro Towing to respond to its demand letter, to the date of this decision. This equals $48.51.

25.   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 $175 in CRT fees. Neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

26.   Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent, BC Pro Towing Ltd., to pay the applicant, 0935079 B.C. Ltd., a total of $5,223.51, broken down as follows:

a.    $5,000 in damages for vehicle repairs,

b.    $48.51 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $175 in CRT fees.

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

28.   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.