Date Issued: October 20, 2023

File: SC-2023-000755

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bahcheli v. Simply Computing Inc., 2023 BCCRT 897

Between:

MELTEM BAHCHELI

Applicant

And:

SIMPLY COMPUTING INC., RONALD GORDON MCORMOND and ROBERT COLE

RespondentS

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Leah Volkers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about computer services. The applicant, Meltem Bahcheli, says they paid the respondents, Simply Computing Inc. (Simply Computing), Ronald Gordon McOrmond and Robert Cole, for data recovery services but received a corrupt disk that was unusable. Ms. Bahcheli collectively claims $3,304 as reimbursement for the amount they allegedly paid for the services, plus credit card interest and compensation for stress and time wasted. Ms. Bahcheli also says they are receptive to the respondent “re-doing the job if done properly”.

2.      The respondents dispute Ms. Bahcheli’s claims. They say Ms. Bahcheli received the service requested, and they are not responsible to reimburse anything.

3.      Mr. Bahcheli is self-represented. Simply Computing is represented by a person I infer is an authorized employee. The other two respondents, Mr. Cole and Mr. McOrmond, are self-represented, but adopted Simply Computing’s submissions as their own.

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.

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.

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.    Did the parties have a contract for computer services?

b.    If yes, are any of the respondents responsible to reimburse Ms. Bahcheli the claimed $3,304 for allegedly deficient computer services, credit card interest, and compensation for stress and time wasted?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim like this one, Ms. Bahcheli, as the applicant, must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not). I have reviewed all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to what I find necessary to explain my decision.

10.   For the following reasons, I find Ms. Bahcheli has not proven that the named parties had a contract for computer services, so I dismiss Ms. Bahcheli’s claims.

11.   At the outset, the respondents say Ms. Bahcheli’s claim is in relation to services performed by Simply Computing. They say Mr. Cole was a Simply Computing employee and Mr. McOrmond is Simply Computing's CEO. They say neither are personally involved. Ms. Bahcheli did not dispute this or otherwise make any specific allegations against either Mr. Cole or Mr. McOrmond. At law, directors, officers and employees of corporations are not personally liable unless they have committed a wrongful act independent from that of the corporation. See Merit Consultants International Ltd. v. Chandler, 2014 BCCA 121. I find Ms. Bahcheli did not allege that Mr. Cole or Mr. McOrmond personally committed a wrongful act independent of Simply Computing. So, I dismiss Ms. Bahcheli’s claims against Mr. Cole and Mr. McOrmond.

12.   Next, Simply Computing submitted two work orders that list the customer as “MBJR Properties Ltd.”. Given this, I asked CRT staff to provide me with the corporate registry search for MBJR Properties Ltd. (MBJR). The corporate registry search shows that Ms. Bahcheli is the sole director and officer of MBJR. MBJR is not a party to this dispute. The parties were provided with the MBJR corporate registry search and asked to provide submissions on whether MBJR was relevant to this dispute. For their part, the respondents said Ms. Bahcheli requested the invoices be made out to MBJR. In response, Ms. Bahcheli explicitly agreed with this and said they did so because “this was a company computer”. I find the parties’ submissions confirm that the contract for computer services was likely with Ms. Bahcheli’s company, MBJR, rather than with Ms. Bahcheli personally.

13.   Ms. Bahcheli did not explain why they are personally seeking reimbursement and compensation from Simply Computing for computer services provided to MBJR. The legal doctrine known as “privity of contract” is relevant here. Privity of contract means that a contract cannot give rights or impose obligations on anyone who is not a party to a contract. In other words, a person must first agree to a contract in order to be bound by it, or to enforce rights under it.

14.   As noted above, as the applicant Ms. Bahcheli bears the burden of proving their claims. I find the evidence does not support a finding that Ms. Bahcheli personally contracted with Simply Computer for computer services. As noted, Ms. Bahcheli’s own submissions confirm the computer services were for an MBJR computer. Given this, I also infer any payment made by Ms. Bahcheli for those services was likely on MBJR’s behalf. So, I find there is no basis to order Simply Computing to reimburse or compensate Ms. Bahcheli personally for any alleged issues with the computer services provided to MBJR.

15.   I make no findings about the rights and obligations of any party to the computer services agreement. I also make no findings about whether Simply Computing’s services were deficient, nor whether MBJR is entitled to any reimbursement or compensation. Nothing in this decision prevents MBJR from making a claim against Simply Computing, subject to the applicable limitation period.

16.   I also note that I was unable to open any of Ms. Bahcheli’s evidence in this dispute. Normally, I would ask the respondents to confirm whether they were able to view Ms. Bahcheli’s evidence, and if not, I would provide Ms. Bahcheli with the opportunity to resubmit the evidence and seek further submissions from the parties on that evidence. However, here, I find it unnecessary to request Ms. Bahcheli resubmit their evidence in this dispute because it would not change the result. Ms. Bahcheli’s own submissions confirm that they are not personally a party to the computing services contract with Simply Computing, and I have dismissed their claims on that basis.

CRT fees and expenses

17.   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 Ms. Bahcheli was unsuccessful, I dismiss their fee claim. The respondents did not pay CRT fees and none of the parties claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

18.   I dismiss Ms. Bahcheli’s claims and this dispute.