Date Issued: August 18, 2023

File: SC-2022-007637

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Alatise v. Ssemaganda, 2023 BCCRT 702

Between:

TUNDE ALATISE

Applicant

And:

VICENT SSEMAGANDA

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Nav Shukla

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about freight shipping fees. The applicant, Tunde Alatise, says in January 2022, he shipped a container to Uganda for the respondent, Vicent Ssemaganda. Mr. Alatise says Mr. Ssemaganda has not paid the agreed upon shipping fees in full. Mr. Alatise claims $4,999 CAD from Mr. Ssemaganda for the allegedly outstanding shipping fees.

2.      Mr. Ssemaganda says that after lengthy discussions in July 2022, Mr. Alatise agreed to accept $4,460 USD from Mr. Ssemaganda as payment in full for the outstanding shipping fees. Mr. Ssemaganda says that he has made various payments since then and less than $200 remains owing to Mr. Alatise.

3.      The parties are each 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). 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.

5.      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, he 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 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.

6.      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.

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 what amount does Mr. Ssemaganda owe Mr. Alatise for unpaid shipping fees?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, Mr. Alatise must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have considered all the parties’ submitted evidence and argument but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

10.   The parties agree that in January 2022, Mr. Alatise shipped certain goods for Mr. Ssemaganda and his wife, A, to Uganda. In the same container, ML, who is Mr. Ssemaganda’s acquaintance, also shipped their own goods. The parties agree on little else. A and ML are not named parties in this dispute.

11.   The main disagreement between the parties is about what amount Mr. Ssemaganda agreed to pay Mr. Alatise for the shipping fees. Mr. Ssemaganda says that there was an initial agreement between Mr. Alatise, A and ML that the shipping fees would be $7,500 USD. Mr. Ssemaganda says that A agreed to pay Mr. Alatise $5,500 USD and ML agreed to pay $2,000 USD. Mr. Ssemaganda says that A paid Mr. Alatise $1,900 USD and a further $910 USD through ML and that ML also paid $1,000 USD towards the shipping fees. Mr. Ssemaganda says that ML then refused to pay for the rest of their share and other issues resulted in the shipping container being held up in Uganda due to non-payment.

12.   As a result, Mr. Ssemaganda says that in July 2022, he, ML and Mr. Alatise’s employee, S, had an in-person meeting, with Mr. Alatise and A on video-call via Zoom. During this meeting, Mr. Ssemaganda says that the meeting participants came to a resolution where Mr. Ssemaganda agreed to pay Mr. Alatise $4,460 USD by post-dated cheque as payment in full for all outstanding shipping fees.

13.   Mr. Ssemaganda says that he provided the $4,460 USD cheque dated for August 31, 2022 during the July meeting to S but later asked Mr. Alatise not to deposit it and said he would make periodic bank deposits instead, which Mr. Ssemaganda says Mr. Alatise agreed to. Mr. Ssemaganda says that he has since paid Mr. Alatise the following amounts: $1,569 USD on August 31, 2022, $1,000 USD on September 10, 2022, $519 USD on September 20, 2022, $580 USD on December 6, 2022, $205 USD on February 21, 2023 and $519 USD on March 6, 2023. These alleged payments total $4,392 USD. Mr. Ssemaganda says that he is not responsible for any more than the $4,460 USD he agreed to pay. Since Mr. Ssemaganda says he has paid $4,392 USD to date, I infer Mr. Ssemaganda argues he only owes Mr. Ssemaganda $68.

14.   Mr. Alatise, on the other hand, says that Mr. Ssemaganda and A agreed to pay $7,500 USD for the shipping charges and $1,400 CDN for loading or trucking charges. Mr. Alatise denies that ML was party to any agreement with him and says that any agreement with ML was between Mr. Ssemaganda and A only. Mr. Alatise says that the $1,400 CDN trucking charges have been paid but that Mr. Ssemaganda and A have paid only $3,668 USD towards the shipping charges. Mr. Alatise says that due to Mr. Ssemaganda’s failure to pay, he incurred $940 USD in charges for late payment to the shipping line. Invoices in evidence show that a trucking company invoiced Mr. Alatise $1,175 CDN for trucking fees on January 10, 2022. Further invoices show Mr. Alatise was charged $7,153 USD for the freight shipping fees, $940 USD for late payment or late pick-up fees, and $173 USD for cleaning and “THC destination” fees. Mr. Ssemaganda does not dispute these charges were for his shipment or that Mr. Alatise has paid these amounts.

15.   Mr. Alatise agrees there was a July 2022 meeting. He says that during this meeting, he agreed to release the container if Mr. Ssemaganda provided a post-dated cheque for $5,340 USD. Mr. Alatise says Mr. Ssemaganda provided this post-dated cheque but subsequently asked him not to deposit it. He acknowledges that Mr. Ssemaganda has since paid $1,569 USD on August 31, 2022, $1,000 USD on September 10, 2022, $519 USD on September 20, 2022 and $580 USD on December 6, 2022, totaling $3,668 USD. In the Dispute Notice, Mr. Alatise says he wants the “full balance paid”. It is unclear whether Mr. Alatise seeks payment based on the allegedly agreed upon $7,500 USD less the $3,668 USD payments or based on the total $8,266 USD he spent on shipping costs for Mr. Ssemaganda less the $3,668 USD payment. I note both amounts when converted to CAD based on the Bank of Canada’s current exchange rate equal more than the CRT’s $5,000 monetary limit for small claims disputes. However, since Mr. Alatise claims only $4,999 in the Dispute Notice, I find he has abandoned any amount over the $5,000 monetary limit.

16.   The parties undisputedly did not have a written agreement setting out the terms of the initial agreement and there is also no documentary evidence before me setting out what payments Mr. Ssemaganda or A made before the July 2022 meeting. However, the evidence includes a July 31, 2022 handwritten agreement that I infer was made during the July 2022 meeting. This agreement says that Mr. Ssemaganda agrees to provide S with a post-dated cheque made to “NTS Towing”, which I infer is Mr. Alatise’s business name, for $4,460 USD. The agreement is signed by Mr. Ssemaganda and S. I find this agreement supports Mr. Ssemaganda’s version of events that Mr. Alatise agreed to accept $4,460 USD as payment in full of all outstanding shipping charges. I find that S, as Mr. Alatise’s employee, made the agreement on Mr. Alatise’s behalf as his agent. So, I find the July 31, 2022 agreement binds Mr. Alatise. Accordingly, I find the parties agreed Mr. Ssemaganda would pay Mr. Alatise $4,460 USD on August 31, 2022 as payment in full for all outstanding shipping fees. Given the banking receipts in evidence discussed below, I also find that Mr. Alatise likely agreed to accept periodic payments from Mr. Ssemaganda towards the $4,460 USD outstanding balance instead of cashing the post-dated cheque (a copy of which is in evidence) on August 31, 2022.

17.   I find the banking receipts show that after making the July 31, 2022 agreement, Mr. Ssemaganda paid Mr. Alatise the $3,668 USD that is undisputed, plus an additional $205 USD on February 21, 2023 and $219 USD (not $519 USD as Mr. Ssemaganda alleges) on March 6, 2023 by depositing these amounts into Mr. Alatise’s bank account. These payments total $4,092. So, I find Mr. Ssemaganda still owes Mr. Alatise $368 USD. Using the Bank of Canada’s current exchange rate, this equals $497.68 CAD.

18.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. Mr. Alatise is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $497.68 from November 28, 2022, the date the Dispute Notice was issued, to the date of this decision. This equals $15.08.

19.   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. Since Mr. Alatise was only partially successful, I find he is entitled to reimbursement of $87.50 for half his paid CRT fees. Neither party claims any dispute-related expenses, so I award none.

ORDERS

20.   Within 14 days of the date of this decision, I order Mr. Ssemaganda to pay Mr. Alatise a total of $600.26, broken down as follows:

a.    $497.68 in debt for the unpaid shipping charges,

b.    $15.08 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $87.50 in CRT fees.

21.   Mr. Alatise is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

 

22.   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.