Date Issued: August 17, 2023

File: SC-2022-007258

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Taylor v. Cox, 2023 BCCRT 691

Between:

DEBEROH G TAYLOR

Applicant

And:

CAMELLA LYNN COX

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Megan Stewart

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about reimbursement for payment of cremation services.

2.      The applicant, Deberoh G Taylor, paid for the respondent’s, Camella Lynn Cox, husband’s cremation. The applicant says the respondent has not repaid her, despite promising to do so once they received their husband’s Canada Pension Plan (CPP) death benefit. The applicant claims $3,475.75 as reimbursement for the paid cremation services.

3.      The respondent says their husband’s former employer gave the applicant money, and that the applicant told the respondent not to worry about the funeral expenses. From this, I infer the respondent’s position is that they are not responsible for paying the claimed amount.

4.      The parties are each self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      These are the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s (CRT) 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.

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 the respondent is responsible for repaying the applicant the $3,475.75 cost of the respondent’s husband’s cremation services.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   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 I find is necessary to explain my decision. The respondent did not submit documentary evidence or written arguments despite being given the chance to do so.

11.   I begin with the undisputed background. On March 16, 2021, the applicant accompanied the respondent to a funeral chapel to arrange for the respondent’s husband’s, PC, cremation. The respondent was unable to pay for the $3,475.75 cremation services at the time, so the applicant paid by bank draft, a copy of which she submitted in evidence. The respondent told the applicant they would repay her once they had received their husband’s CPP death benefit.

12.   The applicant says after requesting payment from the respondent on 2 subsequent occasions, she sent the respondent a demand letter dated June 14, 2022, but she received no response. The applicant submitted a copy of the letter along with confirmation from Canada Post that the respondent signed for the letter on June 21, 2022.

13.   For their part, the respondent says the applicant told them not to worry about the cremation services’ expense, which the applicant denies. While they do not put it in these terms, I find the respondent’s position is that the applicant made them a gift of the cremation services’ expense.

14.   Under the law of gifts, the person who received the alleged gift must establish a) it was intended to be a gift, b) they accepted the gift, and c) there was a sufficient act of delivery (see Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 and Lundy v. Lundy, 2010 BCSC 1004). The evidence should show the giver’s intention to make a gift was inconsistent with any other intention or purpose (see Lundy at paragraph 20 v. Lundy, 2010 BCSC 1004).

15.   Here, the respondent provided no evidence that the applicant told them not to worry about the cost of the cremation, and no other evidence that the applicant’s payment for the cremation services was intended as a gift. In addition, the respondent undisputedly told the applicant they would repay her when they received their husband’s CPP death benefit, which I find suggests the respondent understood that the payment was not a gift. Even if the applicant did tell the respondent not to worry about the cost, I find that is not necessarily the same thing as making a gift of that expense, as it depends on how and in what context the sentiment was expressed. So, I find the respondent has not proven the applicant intended to make a gift of the cremation services’ expenses to the exclusion of any other purpose.

16.   The respondent also says PC’s former employer gave the applicant money, without elaborating. The applicant agrees with this and explains the $1,000 donation was for PC’s memorial service. She submitted a letter from PC’s former employer confirming the money was “to help with the cost of [PC’s] celebration of life”. The applicant also submitted a $1,774.85 August 27, 2021 receipt from a rental company showing she rented various items, including 2 marquees, a podium, a projector, and a screen. She says these items were for PC’s memorial service and that PC’s former employer’s $1,000 donation went towards their rental cost. The applicant also says she donated $774.85 to cover the balance of the rental cost. The respondent does not dispute any of this, and I accept it is the case.

17.   I turn back to the applicant’s claim. I find that by paying for the respondent’s husband’s cremation in circumstances where the respondent was unable to pay, the applicant loaned the respondent $3,475.75 for the services. I find the loan was a contingent loan, as the timing of its repayment depended on the respondent receiving the CPP death benefit. A contingent loan is a loan payable on a future date or when a specific event occurs.

18.   While there is no evidence that the respondent has received their husband’s CPP death benefit, I find it likely that they have, given it has been more than 2 years since their husband’s death. I find that if the respondent had not received the benefit, they probably would have said so in the Dispute Response or written arguments. Since I find the event triggering repayment of the loan has occurred, I find the respondent must repay the applicant $3,475.75 as set out in my order below.

INTEREST, CRT FEES, AND DISPUTE-RELATED EXPENSES

19.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $3,475.75 debt award from June 14, 2022, the date of the applicant’s demand letter, to the date of this decision. This equals $129.84.

20.   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. As the successful party, I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $175 in paid CRT fees. The applicant also claims $11.36 in dispute-related expenses for sending the respondent the demand letter by registered mail. Since the applicant incurred this expense before applying to the CRT for dispute resolution, I find it is not a dispute-related expense, and I dismiss this claim.

ORDERS

21.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent, Camella Lynn Cox, to pay the applicant, Deberoh G Taylor, a total of $3,780.59, broken down as follows:

a.    $3,475.75 in debt for a loan for cremation service expenses,

b.    $129.84 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $175 in paid CRT fees.

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

23.   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.