Date Issued: February 19, 2025

File: SC-2023-012209

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Ash, 2025 BCCRT 231

Between:

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

Applicant

And:

PAMELA ASH

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Megan Stewart

INTRODUCTION

1.      British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) says Pamela Ash diverted electricity from the electric meter on her rental property, and did not pay for it. BC Hydro sent Pamela Ash a $6,515.69 invoice for the diverted electricity, including $259.86 for investigative costs and $1,032.25 for contractual interest. It is undisputed that Pamela Ash paid $3,150. So, BC Hydro claims $3,365.69 for the unpaid part of the invoice.

2.      Pamela Ash says she did not know electricity was being diverted from the meter because her boyfriend at the time took care of the hydro. She says she was paying what she could to “make it right”, but she is no longer able to make payments towards the outstanding amount for the diverted electricity.

3.      An employee represents BC Hydro. Pamela Ash is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). 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, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended. These are the CRT’s formal written reasons.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the hearing’s format, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find 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 an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

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

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Is BC Hydro’s claim out of time?

b.    Is Pamela Ash responsible for electricity being diverted from the electric meter on her property?

c.    If so, must she pay BC Hydro $3,365.69?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      As the applicant in this civil proceeding, BC Hydro must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence, but only refer to information I find necessary to explain my decision. BC Hydro did not make final reply submissions, despite having the chance to do so.

Background

10.   On December 16, 2019, BC Hydro attended Pamela Ash’s home to investigate signs that electricity was being diverted from the electric meter on the property. BC Hydro’s records show it remotely disconnected service to the property for non-payment on January 5, 2018. Investigators discovered that despite the disconnection, electricity had been consumed, the meter was missing, and there were lights on in the house. So, they cut the line at the hydro pole.

11.   BC Hydro sent Pamela Ash a letter dated December 19, 2019, to advise her she owed $6,515.69 for diverted electricity and associated expenses covering the period January 6, 2018 to December 16, 2019. The letter included an invoice setting out the charges.

12.   Pamela Ash says she had no idea the electricity had been illegally hooked up at the property. She says her boyfriend at the time told her he would “take care of the hydro” after the meter was disconnected, since she was responsible for paying the rent and other household expenses.

13.   From January 2020 to September 2022, Pamela Ash made periodic payments to BC Hydro to pay off the amount owing. In total, she paid $3,150. This leaves $3,365.69, which is the amount BC Hydro claims in this dispute.

Is BC Hydro’s claim out of time?

14.   Ms. Ash says it has been over two years since BC Hydro first asked her to pay for the diverted electricity, and that she has paid what she can. I infer Ms. Ash’s position is that BC Hydro is out of time to bring its claim under the Limitation Act.

15.   CRTA section 13 says the Limitation Act applies to CRT claims. Section 6 of the Limitation Act says the basic limitation period to file a claim is two years after the claim is “discovered”. Section 8 says a claim is “discovered” on the first day the person knew, or reasonably should have known, that the loss or damage occurred, that it was caused or contributed to by an act or omission of the person against whom the claim may be made, and that a court or tribunal proceeding would be an appropriate way to remedy the damage. At the end of the two-year limitation period, the right to bring a claim ends, even if the claim otherwise would have been successful.

16.   However, section 24 of the Limitation Act says a limitation period is extended if a person acknowledges liability before the limitation period expires. Partial payment of a liquidated sum is considered an acknowledgment of liability. A liquidated sum is one which is already determined or capable of being determined as a matter of arithmetic.[1]

17.   Here, I find BC Hydro discovered its claim against Pamela Ash on December 16, 2019, when it became aware of the electricity diversion. That means it had until December 16, 2021 to file its claim unless the limitation period was extended. I find that by making periodic payments on the amount BC Hydro said she owed, Pamela Ash acknowledged her liability for the debt, which is a liquidated sum. The last payment Pamela Ash made was $100 on September 20, 2022. I find that is the extended date of discovery of BC Hydro’s claim. So, BC Hydro had until September 20, 2024 to file its claim. Since it did so on November 29, 2023, I find BC Hydro filed its claim within the applicable limitation period, and it is not out of time.

Is Pamela Ash responsible for electricity being diverted from the electric meter on her property?

18.   It is undisputed that Pamela Ash lived at the property where the electricity was diverted between August 2017 and sometime in 2021. She says she had a few roommates during that time. It appears that from November 15, 2017 to January 5, 2018, the hydro account used was one of the roommates’, AB. There is no evidence AB occupied the property after January 5, 2018.

19.   However, Pamela Ash continued to live at the property after the disconnection on January 5, 2018, and electricity continued to be consumed. Although Pamela Ash says her boyfriend told her he would take care of the electricity, there is no independent evidence of this, such as written communications between Pamela Ash and her boyfriend confirming the same, or a BC Hydro account in his name.

20.   In contrast, Pamela Ash remained a BC Hydro customer. Under the applicable April 1, 2017 Electric Tariff (the Electric Tariff) that set out the terms and conditions on which BC Hydro provided electricity to premises, a “customer” is “any Person whose application for Service has been accepted by BC Hydro or, in the absence of such an application, the Person with possession of the Premises to which Service is provided” (my bold emphasis). Section 5.7 of the Electric Tariff permits BC Hydro to back-bill its customers for services where there has been a billing error, including “tampering, fraud, theft or any other criminal act”. Pamela Ash does not dispute the property’s meter was tampered with after the disconnection, and this caused the diversion.

21.   In these circumstances, I find Pamela Ash, as the BC Hydro customer in possession of the property where the electricity diversion was taking place, was responsible for the diversion between January 6, 2018 and December 16, 2019.

Must Pamela Ash pay BC Hydro $3,365.69?

22.   While Pamela Ash does not dispute that the diversion happened, she does challenge the consumption BC Hydro charged her for. She says it is too high.

23.   Under section 5.7.3 of the Electric Tariff, where a customer does not invoke the federal Electricity and Gas Inspection Act dispute procedure for billing errors, BC Hydro’s records or the customer’s available and accurate records, will be used to determine energy consumption. Where no records are available, energy consumption is based on BC Hydro’s “reasonable and fair estimates”.

24.   Here, since the service had been disconnected, there were no records to rely on. So, BC Hydro determined Pamela Ash’s consumption based on average daily use between August 28, 2017, when Pamela Ash moved into the property, and January 5, 2018, when the service was disconnected. It found this was 51.67 KWH/day. Using this figure, BC Hydro calculated the total consumption over 709 days (January 6, 2018 to December 16, 2019) as 36,634.03 KWH.

25.   I find it was reasonable for BC Hydro to calculate Pamela Ash’s estimated consumption of diverted electricity in this way. I say this because the time period BC Hydro used for average daily use covered a shoulder season (fall) that likely included both warmer and cooler weather where consumption may have fluctuated.

26.   I come to a different conclusion about the rates BC Hydro used to calculate the amount owed for the diverted electricity. In its December 19, 2019 invoice, BC Hydro used different rates over three periods to arrive at the $4,962.46 it said Pamela Ash owed before investigative costs, interest, and tax. Section 6.1.1 of the Electric Tariff says the rates BC Hydro charges for service are those set out in the applicable Rate Schedule or elsewhere in the Electric Tariff. BC Hydro did not explain the rates it used to calculate the $4,962.46 it said Pamela Ash owed.

27.   Further, I find it is not obvious from the applicable Rate Schedule (1101), or any other part of the Electric Tariff, that the three different rates BC Hydro used resulted in a reasonable and fair estimate of the amount owed. So, I find BC Hydro has not proven it was entitled to charge Pamela Ash $4,962.46 for 709 days of diverted electricity. In the absence of an explanation of the rates BC Hydro used, I find it is reasonable to use the rate set out in Pamela Ash’s Account History Report BC Hydro submitted in evidence, which appears to be based on the applicable Rate Schedule. That rate is 10.31¢/KWH. Using it, I find the amount owing for the diverted electricity was $3,776.97.

28.   I find BC Hydro was also entitled to charge Pamela Ash for the direct administrative costs it incurred to investigate the diversion, under section 5.7.5 of the Electric Tariff. Pamela Ash does not dispute the $259.86 BC Hydro charged her for investigative costs, and I find it is reasonable.

29.   As for interest, the Electric Tariff provides that in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe a customer tampered with BC Hydro’s service or used it in an unauthorized way, the under-billed amount will bear interest “at the rate normally charged by BC Hydro on unpaid accounts from the date of the original under-billed invoice until the amount under-billed is paid in full”. Under section 11.4 of the Electric Tariff, this rate is 1.5% per month, or 19.6% per year.

30.   The difficulty here is that there is no “original under-billed invoice” because BC Hydro cut off the electricity on January 5, 2018. Instead, BC Hydro says it calculated interest from January 6, 2018, the first date of the electricity diversion, to December 16, 2019, when it cut the line at the pole. Even if I accept that the date the diversion began is the reasonable equivalent of the date of the “original under-billed invoice”, this does not explain the $1,032.25 BC Hydro claims for contractual interest. Using a simple interest calculation, I find the interest claimed should have been $1,437.98 ($3,776.97 x 0.196 x 709) / 365). Since BC Hydro only claims $1,032.25, however, I find it is limited to that amount for the period January 6, 2018 to December 16, 2019.

31.   In total, I find Pamela Ash owed BC Hydro $5,270.92 ($3,776.97 for diverted electricity, $259.86 for investigative costs, $1,032.25 for contractual interest, and $201.84 for tax). I subtract from this the $3,150 Pamela Ash has already paid, which leaves $2,120.92.

32.   I order Pamela Ash to pay BC Hydro $2,120.92. I note Pamela Ash says she does not have any money to pay. However, an inability to pay does not relieve a person of their obligation to do so if ordered.

INTEREST, CRT FEES, AND DISPUTE-RELATED EXPENSES

33.   In its Dispute Notice, BC Hydro claims non-contractual interest under the Court Order Interest Act. However, section 2(b) of the Court Order Interest Act says it does not apply if the parties have an agreement about interest. As explained above, the Electric Tariff sets a 19.6% annual interest rate on under-billed amounts where a customer tampered with BC Hydro’s service or used it in an unauthorized way. Based on this contractual interest rate, I find BC Hydro cannot claim non-contractual interest under the Court Order Interest Act. Other than the $1,032.25 I addressed as part of the substantive claim, BC Hydro did not claim contractual interest in its Dispute Notice. So, I make no separate order for pre-judgment interest.

34.   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 BC Hydro was generally successful, I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $175 in CRT fees. BC Hydro did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

35.   Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order Pamela Ash to pay BC Hydro a total of $2,295.92, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,120.92 in debt, and

b.    $175 in CRT fees.

36.   BC Hydro is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

37.   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.