Date Issued: December 14, 2023

File: SC-2023-001695

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Hart v. Quadlogic Meters Canada Inc., 2023 BCCRT 1095

Between:

GEORGE HART

Applicant

And:

QUADLOGIC METERS CANADA INC.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Alison Wake

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about a pre-authorized payment withdrawal. Quadlogic Meters Canada Inc. (Quadlogic) inadvertently withdrew a pre-authorized payment from George Hart’s bank account 9 days earlier than it was scheduled to. Mr. Hart says that this resulted in non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees from his bank, and caused him to miss work. He claims $2,440 as compensation for the NSF fees, lost earnings, and mental distress.

2.      Quadlogic acknowledges that it mistakenly withdrew Mr. Hart’s payment early. However, it says that it refunded the payment and has already reimbursed Mr. Hart for his NSF fees, so it does not owe him anything further.

3.      Mr. Hart is self-represented. Quadlogic is represented by a director or officer.

4.      For the following reasons, I dismiss Mr. Hart’s claims.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      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.

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.

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.

8.      One piece of Quadlogic’s evidence referenced settlement discussions it had with Mr. Hart during the CRT’s facilitation process. Under section 89 of the CRTA and CRT rule 1.11, settlement discussions are confidential and must not be disclosed to a tribunal member unless the parties consent. There is no evidence that Mr. Hart agreed to Quadlogic disclosing these discussions, so I have not considered them in my decision.

9.      In submissions, Quadlogic says that Mr. Hart still owes it a balance of $514.61, which Mr. Hart disputes. Quadlogic did not file a counterclaim. As I dismiss Mr. Hart’s claims below, I find there is no basis to set off any outstanding balance that Mr. Hart owes Quadlogic. So, I have not addressed the alleged outstanding balance in this decision.

ISSUE

10.   The issue in this dispute is whether Quadlogic must pay Mr. Hart for NSF fees, lost earnings, and mental distress.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant, Mr. Hart, must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only referred to those necessary to explain my decision.

12.   The background facts are undisputed. Mr. Hart had a utility billing account with Quadlogic, and authorized Quadlogic to withdraw invoiced amounts from his bank account. These payments would typically be withdrawn on the invoice’s due date.

13.   Mr. Hart’s November 2022 invoice was for $430.22 and was due on January 12, 2023. On January 3, 2023, Quadlogic inadvertently processed the pre-authorized payment early and withdrew this amount from Mr. Hart’s account. As a result, Mr. Hart’s account did not have sufficient funds for his January rent payment, which was withdrawn on the same day.

14.   Quadlogic emailed Mr. Hart on January 4, acknowledging its error and apologizing for the inconvenience. Quadlogic asked Mr. Hart to contact them if he wished to receive a refund. He did so, and Quadlogic submitted an account statement showing that it refunded the $430.22 to Mr. Hart on January 5.

NSF Fees

15.   Also on January 4, Quadlogic emailed Mr. Hart’s property management company, advising that Mr. Hart’s rent cheque had bounced because of the early withdrawal. Quadlogic asked the company to consider waiving any associated NSF fees.

16.   Despite this, Mr. Hart’s property management company charged him a $25 NSF fee. He also incurred a $45 NSF fee from his bank. Quadlogic submitted a statement showing it applied credits of $25 and $45 to Mr. Hart’s account on January 17, 2023. Mr. Hart does not dispute that these credits were for the NSF fees from his property management company and bank. So, I find Quadlogic has already reimbursed Mr. Hart for the NSF fees. I dismiss this aspect of Mr. Hart’s claim.

Missed work

17.   Mr. Hart says that he missed work on January 4 in order to “get answers” from Quadlogic. Mr. Hart submitted a letter from his employer, DJ. The letter does not include a date or signature, but Quadlogic does not dispute its validity. In the letter, DJ says that on January 4, Mr. Hart called them to advise them that he had an emergency with his rent and that he had to miss work to sort it out.

18.   Mr. Hart submitted call logs showing 5 different calls to Quadlogic on January 4. The calls range from 1 to 3 minutes each, and the total time spent on all 5 calls was 11 minutes. Mr. Hart did not explain why he could not have made these calls before or after work, or while on a break. I find he has not proved that he needed to miss a full day of work to communicate with Quadlogic about the withdrawal.

19.   Next, Mr. Hart says that he missed additional work because he experienced a depressive episode because of the withdrawal. DJ’s letter says that on January 5, Mr. Hart called in to advise of a mental health issue, and that he ultimately missed 6 days of work.

20.   Mr. Hart says that he fell into a depression because his landlord threatened to evict him, and he didn’t know how he would pay his bills or buy necessities. He provided a January 6 email from his building manager, advising that his January rent payment had not gone through. The building manager requested that he make the payment as soon as possible, and that otherwise they would have to issue him a 10 day notice to vacate due to unpaid rent.

21.   Quadlogic says that this was an automated email, and says it was not an actual threat to evict Mr. Hart. The email is not obviously automated, and I accept that it caused Mr. Hart some distress. However, I find that Mr. Hart did not reasonably expect to be evicted, for 2 reasons. First, as noted above, Quadlogic had emailed Mr. Hart’s property management company on January 4 to confirm that Mr. Hart’s rent cheque had bounced because of its error. Mr. Hart and his building manager were both included in this email, so I find Mr. Hart knew that his building manager was aware of the error and the reason for his rent payment bouncing.

22.   Second, while I accept Mr. Hart’s argument that he has a very tight budget, I find he had sufficient funds to cover both his rent payment and Quadlogic’s withdrawal for his utility payment. In a January 4 email to Quadlogic, Mr. Hart said that he had the money for the utility payment in a different account, but had not moved it yet because the payment was not supposed to be withdrawn until January 12.

23.   Also, it appears from Mr. Hart’s screenshot of the email from his building manager that he forwarded it to Quadlogic, saying “Today my landlord threatened to evict me due to your mistake. I have of course rectified it and paid the rent. This is just another added stress that QMC has caused.” It is unclear from the screenshot whether Mr. Hart actually sent this email to Quadlogic, but whether he did or not, it supports a finding that he was able to pay his rent shortly after receiving the warning from his building manager. So, while I again acknowledge that it was likely stressful for Mr. hart to receive this email, I find his potential concerns about eviction were short-lived.

24.   Lastly, Mr. Hart did not provide any medical evidence confirming that he was unable to work because of his mental health following this incident. Even if he had, I note that damages for breach of contract must reasonably and naturally arise from the breach, or be contemplated by the parties when they made the contract. Otherwise, the money claimed is too remote from the breach of contract (see Learmonth v. Letroy Holdings Ltd., 2011 BCSC 143, appeal dismissed 2012 BCCA 262). Even if I accept that Mr. Hart missed work due to depression resulting from Quadlogic’s error, I find this was not reasonably foreseeable by Quadlogic when it entered into the pre-authorized payment agreement with Mr. Hart. So, I would have dismissed this aspect of Mr. Hart’s claim in any event.

Mental Distress

25.   Finally, Mr. Hart claims damages for his “stress and suffering”. In general, when a party breaches a contract, the other party cannot be compensated for mental distress. There are 2 main exceptions. First, a party may get significant compensation when the contract’s main purpose was “peace of mind”, such as vacations or wedding photography. Second, a party may get more modest compensation where part of the contract’s purpose was for a “psychological benefit”. In these cases, the party may be compensated for inconvenience and discomfort that goes beyond mere frustration or disappointment (see Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 30).

26.   No written contract between the parties is in evidence, but I infer from the parties’ submissions that they agreed that Quadlogic would bill Mr. Hart for utilities and would withdraw invoiced amounts directly from his bank account. While the pre-authorized withdrawal agreement likely offered some convenience to both parties, I find the contract’s ultimate purpose was for utility service and billing, not for peace of mind or a psychological benefit. So, I find Mr. Hart is not entitled to damages for mental distress, and I dismiss this aspect of his claim.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

27.   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. Mr. Hart was unsuccessful, so I dismiss his claim for CRT fees. Quadlogic was the successful party but paid no CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

28.   I dismiss Mr. Hart’s claims and this dispute.