Date Issued: October 10, 2023

File: SC-2022-008743

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Frings v. Sunrise Ford Sales Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 854

Between:

DIETER JOHANN FRINGS

Applicant

And:

SUNRISE FORD SALES LTD.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Sarah Orr

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a dispute about truck repairs. The applicant, Dieter Johann Frings, owns a 2012 Ford Super Duty F-350 (truck). Between July and October 2022, the respondent, Sunrise Ford Sales Ltd. (Sunrise), made various repairs to the truck, which Mr. Frings says were substandard. He also says Sunrise improperly refused to cover some repairs under warranty. Mr. Frings claims $5,000 for what he says were Sunrise’s substandard repairs, the cost of paying a different mechanic to repair the truck, towing fees, the inconvenience of having to drive over 1,000 kilometers to go to Kamloops twice, and the inconvenience of not having the use of his truck for several weeks.

2.      Sunrise denies that any of its services were substandard and says it does not owe Mr. Frings anything.

3.      Mr. Frings is self-represented and Sunrise is represented by its owner.

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). 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Sunrise’s services were substandard, and if so, whether Mr. Frings is entitled to $5,000 in damages.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Frings must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities, which means more likely than not. Sunrise was given an opportunity to provide evidence but chose not to do so. Similarly, Mr. Frings was given an opportunity to provide reply submissions but chose not to do so. I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions but refer only to what I find relevant to explain my decision. For the following reasons, I dismiss Mr. Frings’ claims.

10.   On July 12, 2022, Mr. Frings’ truck broke down and he had it towed to Sunrise. Sunrise repaired the truck’s rear brakes and Mr. Frings paid $593.59 for the repairs. Several months later, Mr. Frings heard a squeaky noise coming from the truck’s rear brakes. On October 11, 2022, Sunrise inspected the truck’s brakes, and on October 17, 2022 it replaced the truck’s front calipers, rotors, and brake pads. Mr. Frings paid Sunrise a total of $1,702.84 for the October services. None of this is disputed.

11.   Mr. Frings says Sunrise’s October 2022 repairs failed to fix the squeaking noise, so he took the truck to a different mechanic. He says that mechanic determined that Sunrise had improperly repaired the rear brakes in July 2022. Mr. Frings asked Sunrise to cover the cost of additional repairs to address the squeaking noise. Sunrise agreed to inspect the truck, and it was towed to Sunrise partially disassembled. After inspecting the truck, Sunrise undisputedly refused to cover the requested repairs under warranty. On October 31, 2022, Mr. Frings paid the other mechanic $3,094.10 to repair the squeaking noise.

 

 

Were Sunrise’s services substandard, and if so, is Mr. Frings entitled to $5,000 in damages?

12.   Mr. Frings says that in July 2022 Sunrise improperly repaired his rear brakes by using F150 parts instead of F350 parts, mounting the brakes against a backing plate that was almost completely rusted through, and incorrectly installing a security clip.

13.   With respect to the parts Sunrise used for the repair, Mr. Frings says the other mechanic who repaired his truck in October 2022 told him Sunrise installed brake shoes for an F150 instead of F350. Mr. Frings did not submit a statement from the mechanic or any other documentary evidence to prove this allegation aside from some photos, which I find unhelpful. Sunrise denies using incorrect parts on Mr. Frings’ truck, and says it uses parts kits that are specific to each vehicle model which come with Ford warranties. Without more, I find Mr. Frings has failed to prove this allegation.

14.   With respect to Mr. Frings’ allegations about the rusted backing plates and security clip, he submitted some photos of these parts, but I find they are insufficient on their own to prove his allegations. I find that whether Sunrise’s repairs of these parts were substandard is beyond common knowledge, so expert evidence is required (see Bergen v. Guliker, 2015 BCCA 283). Mr. Frings did not submit a statement from the third party mechanic or any other independent expert evidence. He says he was a car mechanic in Europe, but he did not provide any further details about his qualifications or experience, which is required under CRT rule 8.3(5). In any event, to the extent that Mr. Frings relies on his own expertise in his submissions about Sunrise’s repairs, I find his evidence is not neutral. For these reasons, I do not accept any of Mr. Frings’ statements in his submissions as expert evidence.

15.   Sunrise’s July 2022 invoice notes that the rear backing plates were “starting to rust out”, which Sunrise says is a common issue with F350s. Mr. Frings says that despite this note, no one at Sunrise told him about this issue. Sunrise disagrees and says it told Mr. Frings over a 5-month period that the backing plates were rusted, and he never asked Sunrise to repair or replace them. I find the note on the invoice is the best evidence that Sunrise notified Mr. Frings about this issue. However, I find nothing turns on this, because I find Mr. Frings has failed to establish on the evidence before me that the backing plates were rusted to such an extent that Sunrise should have replaced them. For all of these reasons, I find Mr. Frings has not proven that Sunrise’s July 2022 brake repairs on the truck were substandard.

16.   Mr. Frings also says Sunrise failed to sufficiently repair the squeaking noise in October 2022, and improperly failed to cover under warranty the additional repair work required to eliminate the noise. Sunrise says that in response to Mr. Fring’s complaint in October about the noise, it inspected its rear brake work from July 2022 and determined it was done properly. Sunrise says its repairs on the front brakes in October 2022 improved the truck’s function and noise, and there was no clear failure on the truck after its October inspection and repairs. Mr. Frings says Sunrise’s October invoice shows it did not check the emergency brake. However, the invoice says Sunrise performed a “brake inspection”, so I find it is more likely than not that this included the emergency brake. Even if it did not, Mr. Frings has not explained how inspecting the emergency brake would have changed the outcome of Sunrise’s repairs.

17.   Mr. Frings says the other mechanic resolved the squeaky noise after Sunrise failed to do so, but he did not explain exactly what repairs the mechanic completed. The invoice in evidence from the mechanic says only “rear brake ass” (reproduced as written) with no further explanation, and there is no independent documentary evidence supporting Mr. Frings’ assertion about the squeaking noise. I find Mr. Frings has failed to prove that Sunrise’s October repairs on his truck were substandard.

18.   With respect to the warranty, Sunrise says Mr. Frings called from the non-Ford mechanic shop and demanded that Sunrise pay for the repairs required to eliminate the squeaking noise. As noted, Mr. Fring does not explain what exactly those repairs entailed. Sunrise says it paid to have the truck towed to its shop, but the non-Ford mechanic had already dismantled part of the truck and did not provide the failed parts. Mr. Frings says it brought the disassembled parts in a carboard box, but I find there is no evidence to support this allegation. Sunrise says it could not verify the information it received verbally from the non-Ford mechanic about the rear brakes’ failure because it received the truck disassembled with some parts missing. Sunrise says that because of this, and the fact that it had already inspected its July 2022 work and deemed it sufficient, it refused to repair the truck under warranty. As noted, Mr. Frings did not provide reply submissions despite having the opportunity to do so. Nor did he provide the warranty as evidence. I find he has failed to establish that Sunrise was required to repair his truck under warranty.

19.   For all of these reasons, I dismiss Mr. Frings’ claims.

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. Since Mr. Frings was unsuccessful, I find he is not entitled to reimbursement of his CRT fees. Sunrise did not pay any CRT fees, and neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

21.   I dismiss Mr. Frings’ claims and this dispute.