Date Issued: May 8, 2025

File: SC-2024-012735

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Choi v. Malvania, 2025 BCCRT 586

BETWEEN:

MUNCHANG CHOI

APPLICANT

AND:

MONIK MALVANIA

RESPONDENT

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Munchang Choi, says the respondent, Monik Malvania, was rude to him. Mr. Choi says Mr. Malvania’s aggressive, disrespectful, and dismissive attitude caused Mr. Choi mental distress which required medical intervention. Mr. Choi claims $1,260 for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

2.      Mr. Malvania admits swearing once at Mr. Choi. He otherwise denies being rude. Mr. Malvania says Mr. Choi’s claim is unreasonable and should be dismissed.

3.      The parties each represent themselves.

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.      The CRT conducts most hearings by written submissions, but has discretion to decide the hearing’s format, including by telephone or videoconference. No party requested an oral hearing, and Mr. Choi specifically requested to only be communicated with in writing. I find I am able to make a decision on the written record before me. So, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

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

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.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Malvania owes Mr. Choi damages for mental distress.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Mr. Choi must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only addressed those necessary to explain my decision.

10.   On June 3, 2024, Mr. Choi attended at a car dealership where Mr. Malvania works in the service department. Mr. Choi says Mr. Malvania ignored him and treated him dismissively, which caused him to feel insignificant and humiliated. Mr. Choi does not give details about the interaction, other than generally saying Mr. Malvania was rude, aggressive, disrespectful, and unprofessional. Mr. Malvania says it was Mr. Choi who was being rude and disrespectful. However, Mr. Malvania admits that during the interaction, he said “I am not here to f***ing argue with you”. Mr. Malvania concedes his behaviour was flawed, but says it does not warrant Mr. Choi’s claimed damages.

11.   For the following reasons, I dismiss Mr. Choi’s claims. First, Mr. Malvania was working at the car dealership when the incident occurred, which I infer is a corporation. There is no evidence that Mr. Malvania owns or otherwise runs the company. He is an employee. Corporations’ employees acting in the course of their employment are not personally liable unless they have committed a wrongful act independent of that of the corporation (see: XY, LLC v. Zhu, 2013 BCCA 352). There is no evidence that Mr. Malvania acted outside the scope of his employment.

12.   Second, even if Mr. Malvania had acted outside the scope of his employment, I still would not have allowed Mr. Choi’s claims. Mr. Choi did not identify the legal basis for his claim, which is not uncommon for self-represented parties in CRT disputes. So, I have considered the torts of intentional infliction of mental distress and assault.

13.   To succeed in a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress, Mr. Choi must show that Mr. Malvania’s conduct was (1) flagrant and extreme, (2) plainly calculated to produce harm, and (3) resulted in visible and provable illness (see: Lu v. Shen, 2020 BCSC 490, at paragraph 257). I find Mr. Choi has not shown that Mr. Malvania’s conduct was flagrant or extreme, or that his conduct was plainly calculated to produce harm. So, I find Mr. Choi has not proven intentional infliction of mental distress. To the extent Mr. Choi argues Mr. Malvania’s conduct was negligent, the tort of intentional of infliction or mental distress is an intentional one and negligence does not establish liability (see: Kedia International Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2008 BCSC 122, at paragraph 122).

14.   I also considered whether Mr. Choi alleges Mr. Malvania assaulted him. At common law, assault is about threats of imminent harm or offensive contact (see: Johal v. Mangat, 2020 BCSC 1148). I find there is no evidence that Mr. Malvania’s behaviour or the fact that he admittedly swore at Mr. Choi, amounts to an assault.

15.   Based on all the above, I find Mr. Choi has not proven Mr. Malvania is responsible to pay him any compensation as a result of the June 3, 2024 incident. I dismiss Mr. Choi’s claims.

16.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Choi was unsuccessful, I dismiss his claims for reimbursement of tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

17.   Mr. Choi’s claims are dismissed.