Date Issued: February 19, 2025

File: SC-2023-013174

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Renaerts v. Gittens, 2025 BCCRT 229

Between:

AMINATA RENAERTS

Applicant

And:

ROMARIO GITTENS

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Mark Henderson

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about ownership of personal property including a car and a t-shirt printer.

2.      The applicant, Aminata Renaerts, and the respondent, Romario Gittens are former romantic partners. The applicant says the respondent has the applicant’s car, car keys, t-shirt printer, house keys and mailbox keys. The applicant wants the applicant to return these items. Alternatively, the applicant seeks $4,400 for these items.

3.      The respondent says although the applicant paid for the car, the car is registered in the respondent’s name. The respondent also says the t-shirt printer was a Christmas gift from the applicant.

4.      Both parties are self-represented.

5.      For the reasons set out below, I find the applicant has proven their claim for the t-shirt printer, but not for the car.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) section 118. CRTA section 2 says 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,

7.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the hearing’s format. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. I find that an oral hearing is not necessary.

8.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in court.

9.      Where permitted by section CRTA section 118, 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

10.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Who owns the car?

b.    Did the applicant gift the t-shirt printer to the respondent?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not). I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

12.   The respondent provided no evidence other than their submissions, despite having the opportunity to do so.

13.   In their Dispute Notice, the applicant also claims for house keys, car keys and mailbox keys. The applicant said in their submissions that the respondent has since returned the house keys. The applicant did not provide any details about the mailbox keys in their submissions or evidence. So, I dismiss the claim for house and mailbox keys. I consider the claim for car keys as part of the dispute about ownership of the car below.

Who owns the car?

14.   Personal property ownership is determined not only by who purchased the property but also by implied or express agreements between the parties and, depending on the circumstances, the law of gifts and other factors.

15.   In the case of motor vehicles, the Insurance Vehicle Act (IVA) section 1 defines an owner as the person whose name is on the owner’s certificate. Motor Vehicle Act section 3 also requires the owner to register the vehicle, obtain a licence for its use and obtain an owner’s certificate under the IVA.

16.   The applicant undisputedly paid for a car. However, the applicant did not provide an owner’s certificate or describe any details about the car such as the car’s make or model. The applicant provided a picture of the car, but the picture only shows a white car with no other defining features such as a logo, brand name or model name. The applicant also provided no evidence about how much they paid for the car or when they bought the car.

17.   The respondent agrees that the applicant paid for a car. However, the respondent says their name is on the insurance. The respondent did not provide a copy of the owner’s certificate either. Since the respondent says their name is on the insurance, I infer that the respondent says their name is on the owner’s certificate.

18.   Since the applicant has not provided an owner’s certificate that includes their name, I find the applicant has not proved they are the registered owner of the car in dispute. So, I dismiss the applicant’s claim for return of the car and car keys.

Was the t-shirt printer a gift from the applicant to the respondent?

19.   Under the law of gifts, the person claiming to receive the gift, here the respondent, must prove the item was a gift (see Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17). To prove a gift, the respondent must show that the applicant intended to give them the t-shirt printer, and that this gift was inconsistent with any other intention (see Lundy v. Lundy, 2010 BCSC 1004).

20.   The applicant provided a copy of the invoice for the t-shirt printer. The applicant purchased the t-shirt printer on November 21, 2023, for $304.63. The parties do not dispute that the respondent currently possesses the t-shirt printer.

21.   The applicant says they bought the t-shirt printer and put it under their Christmas tree but never intended to give the t-shirt printer to the respondent. The respondent says the applicant gave them the t-shirt printer as a Christmas gift. The respondent said he had wanted a t-shirt printer for some time. The respondent did not provide any other supporting information to prove the t-shirt printer was a gift.

22.   Neither party said how long their relationship lasted or whether gift giving was a normal part of their relationship. I find the respondent has not provided any supporting evidence or details to establish that the t-shirt printer was a gift. So, I find the t-shirt printer was not a gift.

23.   The applicant asks for the t-shirt printer’s return or damages for the t-shirt printer. I find that an award of damages is reasonable in the circumstances. So, I find the applicant is entitled to $304.63 for the cost of the t-shirt printer.

24.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $304.63 from December 25, 2023, the day the respondent took the t-shirt printer, to the date of this decision. This equals $17.23.

25.   Under CRTA section 49 and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Here, neither party paid CRT fees or claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

26.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $321.86, broken down as follows:

a.    $304.63 in damages, and

b.    $17.23 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act.

27.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

28.   I dismiss the applicant’s other claims.

 

 

29.   This is a validated decision and order. 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.