Date Issued: March 22, 2023

File: SC-2022-005306

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: 2 Burley Men Moving Ltd. v. Rawji, 2023 BCCRT 240

Between:

2 BURLEY MEN MOVING LTD.

 

Applicant

And:

AMMAN RAWJI

 

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment for residential moving services. The respondent, Amman Rawji, hired the applicant moving company, 2 Burley Men Moving Ltd. (Burley), to move his belongings from 3 separate pick-up locations to 1 final destination. After the move was completed, Mr. Rawji undisputedly refused to pay. So, Burley claims $3,015 for its services.

2.      Mr. Rawji says Burley never gave him a bill and never explained their charges other than providing an hourly rate for 3 movers. He also says Burley caused “severe damage” to his belongings. Mr. Rawji did not file a counterclaim.

3.      Burley is represented by an employee or principal. Mr. Rawji is 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). 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. As the CRT’s mandate includes proportional and speedy dispute resolution, I find I can fairly hear this dispute through written submissions.

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.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Whether Burley has proved it is entitled to the claimed $3,015 for its moving services, and

b.    Whether Mr. Rawji has proved he is entitled to a set-off for any proven property damage.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Burley must prove its claim on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the submitted evidence and arguments but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision. Mr. Rawji did not submit any documentary evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so.

10.   The evidence before me is limited. First, I will address the property damage allegation. As noted, Mr. Rawji did not submit a counterclaim. So, I find he seeks a set-off against any award I grant Burley for its moving services. This is consistent with Mr. Rawji’s submission that he feels the damage issue “needs to be resolved here now”, meaning as part of the CRT process. However, as noted, Mr. Rawji submitted no documentary evidence and no description of what property damage allegedly occurred. So, I find no basis to order any set-off against the money I order Mr. Rawji to pay Burley.

11.   I turn then to Burley’s claim for payment of its moving services invoice. Burley submitted a screenshot of what it calls its “Appointment Confirmation Page”, for Mr. Rawji’s scheduled August 15, 2022 move. It shows the 3 separate pick-up locations (a “partial house”, a storage locker, and a 2-bedroom apartment) and 1 final destination. It also sets out a $200 hourly rate for 3 movers, plus 1.25 hours of travel time, plus a $75 “fuel fee”. There is nothing on the face of the appointment confirmation that indicates Burley gave any estimate for the total amount of moving time that would be required.

12.   Mr. Rawji says Burley never gave him a copy of its bill. However, Burley submitted in evidence a copy of its August 15, 2022 waybill. It set out a “total time” of 12.5 hours plus 1.5 hours of travel time, for a total of $2,800. With GST and the $75 fuel fee, this totals the claimed $3,015.

13.   Mr. Rawji says Burley never explained its charges. There is no evidence before me that Burley ever sent Mr. Rawji a copy of the appointment confirmation, such as a copy of an email to him. There is also no statement from a Burley employee saying they told Mr. Rawji the applicable terms before he agreed to the move. However, as noted above, Mr. Rawji admits that he knew “the hourly rate” for 3 movers. So, I accept that he knew $200 was the rate. Mr. Rawji does not dispute the move took 12.5 hours, and so I accept that it did.

14.   Next, I accept that it was an implied term that Mr. Rawji would pay for Burley’s reasonable travel time, which Mr. Rawji does not dispute. Given the distance between the pick-up and drop off locations, I find 1.5 hours was reasonable, and again Mr. Rawji does not dispute that figure. However, I do not accept Mr. Rawji ever agreed to a $75 “fuel fee”, because there is no evidence before me that he did. I do not allow the $75.

15.   So, I allow a total of $2,940 in debt.

16.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Burley is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,940 under the COIA. Calculated from August 15, 2022 to the date of this decision, this interest equals $48.07.

17.   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. Burley was substantially successful so I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $175 in paid CRT fees. Neither party claims dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

18.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order Mr. Rawji to pay Burley a total of $3,163.07, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,940 in debt,

b.    $48.07 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $175 in CRT fees.

19.   Burley is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

20.   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.