Date Issued: November 29, 2023

File: SC-2023-000569

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Giles v. Clayton, 2023 BCCRT 1036

Between:

ERIC GILES

Applicant

And:

CHASE CLAYTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Nav Shukla

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about a damaged jacket. The applicant, Eric Giles, says a dog owned by the respondent, Chase Clayton, allegedly jumped on him on March 6, 2022, causing damage to his down jacket. Mr. Giles claims $293.16 in damages for the cost of replacing his jacket.

2.      Mr. Clayton denies his dog jumped on Mr. Giles and caused the alleged damage.

3.      Both parties are 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). 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. 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. I also note that in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, at paragraphs 32 to 38, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized the CRT’s process and found that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is an issue.

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.

ISSUE

7.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Clayton must pay Mr. Giles $293.16 for his damaged jacket.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      As the applicant in this civil proceeding, Mr. Giles 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.

9.      Mr. Giles says that on March 6, 2022, he and Mr. Clayton were both in the enclosed off-leash dog park at their shared apartment complex when Mr. Clayton’s dog, Kaiser, repeatedly jumped on him. Mr. Giles says that he was able to fend off Kaiser the first 2 times but as he got up to walk away, Kaiser jumped on him again, puncturing holes in his down jacket with his claws. Mr. Giles says no other dogs or dog owners were in the dog park at the time the incident happened, so there were no witnesses.

10.   Mr. Clayton, on the other hand, denies the incident took place. He says he has no memory of any incident occurring where he and Mr. Giles were in the dog park without any other dog owners present. Mr. Clayton says the only interactions he has had with Mr. Giles in the dog park were in group settings with other tenants and their dogs present.

11.   Mr. Giles’ documentary evidence includes 2 pictures showing the damage to the jacket, a November 29, 2021 invoice and corresponding credit card statement showing the jacket’s original purchase, and a March 28, 2022 invoice for the replacement jacket he purchased.

12.   In his written argument, Mr. Giles refers to contemporaneous notes that he says he took on March 6, 2022 when the alleged incident took place, the following day when he allegedly confronted Mr. Clayton about the damage to his jacket and asked him to pay for it, and on March 29, 2022 when Mr. Giles says he again confronted and then followed Mr. Clayton after he refused to give Mr. Giles his personal information to allow Mr. Giles to start legal proceedings against him. Mr. Giles did not provide a copy or screenshot of these notes as part of his documentary evidence and instead included the alleged notes as part of his written argument.

13.   Mr. Clayton disputes the accuracy of these notes and alleges they were not written on the dates Mr. Giles says. In particular, he says the first incident did not happen, and the 2 confrontations were in June, not March. In support, he relies on a video that another resident, TC, took of the second confrontation at the dog park. Based on messages in evidence between Mr. Clayton and TC from June 29, 2022 when TC sent him the video, I find it likely that the second confrontation took place in June, and not in March as Mr. Giles alleges. I find the June 29 messages and video put significant doubt on the reliability of Mr. Giles’ alleged contemporaneous notes included in his written argument. So, I give them little weight.

14.   In support of his allegation that Kaiser damaged his jacket, Mr. Giles says that Kaiser is known to be aggressive and often jumps on people. However, Mr. Giles provided no witness statements or other documentary evidence from other residents who may have had such interactions with Kaiser. On the other hand, Mr. Clayton denies Kaiser is aggressive. He relies on a document in evidence that is signed by 25 current and previous residents at the parties’ apartment complex, saying that Kaiser is a happy, friendly, and sociable dog that has never shown aggression or attacked someone in the dog park. While I find this document supports Mr. Clayton’s argument that Kaiser is not typically an aggressive dog, it provides little assistance in determining whether Kaiser jumped on Mr. Giles on March 6 and damaged his jacket, since none of the individuals that signed the document were in the dog park during the alleged incident.

15.   Ultimately, I am left with a “he said, he said” situation, or what is known as an evidentiary tie, about what happened on March 6, 2022. As noted above, Mr. Giles, as the applicant, has the burden of proof. I am unable to find from the photographs of the damaged jacket in evidence that the holes were more likely than not caused by a dog, and specifically Kaiser. Given the absence of any supporting evidence proving that the incident took place on March 6, 2022 as Mr. Giles’ alleges, and that the damage to Mr. Giles’ jacket was caused by Kaiser, I find Mr. Giles has failed to prove that Mr. Clayton is responsible for reimbursing him the claimed $293.16. So, I dismiss Mr. Giles’ claims.

16.   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 Mr. Giles was unsuccessful, I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of his paid CRT fees. Mr. Clayton did not pay any fees and neither party claims any dispute-related expenses, so I award none.

ORDER

17.   I dismiss Mr. Giles’ claims and this dispute.