Date Issued: February 14, 2023

File: SC-2022-002940

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Page v. Page, 2023 BCCRT 141

Between:

BROOKE LEE PAGE

Applicant

And:

DAYTON EARL EDWARD PAGE

RespondenT

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Megan Stewart

 

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payments between former spouses.

2.      The applicant, Brooke Lee Page, says the respondent, Dayton Earl Edward Page, owes her $3,143 for Canada child benefit (CCB) she received from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and transferred to him in 2021. She says the CRA has now paid the respondent CCB directly, so he has been paid twice for the same benefit. The applicant also says the CRA seeks repayment from her of $3,143 so the respondent must reimburse her $3,143.

3.      The respondent denies the applicant’s claim. He says the applicant paid him the $3,143 as part of a verbal agreement the parties entered into while dividing up their shared assets during divorce proceedings. The respondent says it is not money the applicant transferred him for CCB, so he has not been paid twice. So, he says he owes her nothing.

4.      The parties are each self-represented.

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. Some of the evidence in this dispute amounts to a “he said, she 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 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. I also note that in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, at paragraphs 32 to 38, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized the CRT’s process and found that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is an issue.

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.

Family Law Act

9.      The Family Law Act (FLA) applies to people who are either legally married or who lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least 2 years. It is undisputed the parties lived together in a marriage-like relationship for more than 2 years, so the FLA applied to it. Under the FLA, the BC Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders about the division of family property and family debt, and to set aside agreements about property and debt division.

10.   I find the applicant is not seeking an order to divide family property or family debt, nor is she seeking to set aside the parties’ separation agreement. Rather, I find this is a claim for debt arising from payments the applicant made to the respondent from money she received after the parties were separated. More on this below. I find the CRT can decide this claim under its small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages. So, I find it is appropriate for the CRT to resolve this dispute.

ISSUES

11.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did the applicant transfer the respondent the claimed $3,143 for CCB or did she pay him that amount as part of an agreement to divide shared assets?

b.    If the applicant transferred the $3,143 to the respondent for CCB, is she entitled to reimbursement?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12.   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’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

What did the applicant transfer the $3,143 to the respondent for?

13.   The parties signed a separation agreement dated July 13, 2021. The agreement fixed their separation date as September 15, 2020, though I note in submissions the applicant says their separation began in September 2019. However, nothing turns on this, as the applicant received the money at issue in 2021 which is later than either of these dates. The separation agreement makes no provision for CCB.

14.   The applicant says at the time of separation she was receiving monthly CCB of $898. She says that beginning in February 2021 and ending in August 2021, she made $449 monthly transfers to the respondent for CCB, which totaled $3,143. She says she made these transfers to the respondent because their children were with each of them half of the time. The applicant says she stopped making the transfers when she realized the CRA had changed her CCB amount and was paying the respondent CCB directly. She also says the CRA paid the respondent CCB retroactively, including for the period February to August 2021 when she had been transferring him money for CCB. The applicant says the CRA then billed her for these retroactive payments.

15.   The respondent disagrees. He says the applicant contacted the CRA in spring 2021 to make herself the “sole beneficiary” of the parties’ CCB entitlement and for approximately 8 months, he did not receive his share of CCB. He says the CRA only began to pay him CCB from February 2022 when he provided it with evidence of the parties’ shared custody arrangement. The respondent says the applicant never paid him for CCB.

16.   Instead, he alleges in August 2021, while the parties were settling their divorce, they entered into a verbal agreement to divide their shared assets. He explains they agreed on an “equity swap” under which the applicant would keep the family home and he would get their rental unit. In addition, the applicant would pay the respondent an equalization payment due to the difference in value of the two properties. The respondent says he agreed to the applicant paying him part of the equalization payment over time, and that this was what the transfers the applicant made to him were for. He also says in February 2022 when the CRA began paying him CCB, it sought to recoup CCB overpayments from the applicant. He says the applicant is now trying to improperly recover from him the amount the CRA seeks for the CCB overpayments.

17.   The applicant’s bank statements from late 2020 and early 2021 show she received $898 monthly deposits from “Canada FPT”. The respondent does not dispute these were CCB deposits, and I accept they were. The applicant also provided a history of e-transfers she made between February and August 2021. The history shows from February to June 2021, the applicant made 5 monthly $449 e-transfers to “dayton page” using an email address matching the respondent’s name. In August 2021, the history shows a $900 e-transfer using the same email address.

18.   As the majority of the amounts transferred are exactly half the CCB deposits into the applicant’s bank account, I find the evidence strongly supports the applicant’s position that she transferred them to the respondent for CCB and that she made a double payment in August 2021. The respondent has provided no evidence to contradict the applicant or to support his assertion the transfers were made as part of a verbal “equity swap”. Text messages submitted by the respondent show the applicant did not agree to pay him money for the family home outside of any written arrangements as he alleges. The separation agreement, which post-dates all but one of the e-transfers in question, indicates the applicant was to pay the respondent an equalization payment for the family home.

19.   Based on the evidence before me, I find the applicant paid the respondent $3,145 (5 x $449 + $900) for CCB between February 2021 and August 2021. I find the $3,143 claimed by the applicant is likely an addition error.

Is the applicant entitled to reimbursement from the respondent?

20.   Though the applicant has not explained the legal basis for her claim, the evidence suggests the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment may apply. To prove the respondent was unjustly enriched, the applicant must show: a) that the respondent was enriched, b) that she suffered a corresponding deprivation or loss, and c) that there is no “juristic reason” or valid basis for the enrichment (see Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52).

21.   Based on my conclusion above, I find the respondent was enriched by the applicant’s payments between February and August 2021.

22.   The next question is whether the applicant suffered a corresponding deprivation or loss. The applicant does not say she suffered a loss just because she transferred money to the respondent, which she admits she did willingly based on their shared parenting schedule. Rather, she claims the loss arose because the CRA paid the respondent CCB retroactively and now seeks to recover CCB overpayments from her. I agree that if proven, this would demonstrate the applicant suffered a corresponding loss.

23.   In these circumstances I find the applicant has proven she suffered a corresponding loss. The respondent says the CRA began paying him CCB from February 2022. However, he does not dispute the applicant’s claim the CRA retroactively paid him CCB for February to August 2021 and now seeks to recover that amount from her, which I find he could easily have done if he did not agree with it. So, I find it more likely than not the CRA retroactively paid the respondent CCB for February to August 2021 and now seeks to recover CCB overpayments from the applicant.

24.   The applicant submitted CCB notices from the CRA from December 2021 setting out details of amounts she owes. In particular, the notices show for the period December 2020 to June 2021, the CRA reduced the applicant’s CCB entitlement by $2,341.33. This equals about $334.48 a month. So, I find for February to June 2021 the applicant’s entitlement was reduced by $1,672.40 (5 x $334.48). The notices also show for the period July to November 2021, the CRA reduced the applicant’s CCB entitlement by $1,858.35. This equals about $371.67 a month. So, I find for July and August 2021 the applicant’s entitlement was reduced by $743.34 (2 x $371.67). Therefore, for the period February to August 2021, I find the applicant’s CCB benefit was reduced by $2,415.72 ($1,672.40 + $743.34). I find this is the amount the CRA says the applicant owes it for CCB overpayments between February and August 2021. So, I find $2,415.72 is the amount of the applicant’s loss.

25.   I acknowledge the applicant claims the full amount she transferred to the respondent between February and August 2021, which she says is $3,143 and which I find is actually $3,145. However, I find either of these greater amounts unproven, as I find the CCB notices only show the CRA seeks to recover $2,415.72 from the applicant for the period in question.

26.   Finally, I find there is no juristic reason for the respondent’s enrichment to the detriment of the applicant. The applicant did not intend the transfers for CCB to be gifts, nor did they arise from a contract. The enrichment is not required by law and I find there are no public policy reasons that justify the respondent retaining the enrichment. I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $2,415.72.

27.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,415.72 from March 21, 2022, the date the applicant asked the respondent to be reimbursed. This equals $36.99.

28.   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. The applicant did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

29.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $2,627.71, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,415.72 as reimbursement for CCB transfers,

b.    $36.99 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $175 in CRT fees.

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

31.   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.