Date Issued: July 3, 2025

Files: SC-2023-006961,
SC-2023-008763,
and SC-2023-010019

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Graham v. Steele, 2025 BCCRT 899

Between:

GALE THOMAS MICHAEL GRAHAM

Applicant

And:

ROY MORRIS STEELE

Respondent

And:

GALE THOMAS MICHAEL GRAHAM

respondent by counterclaim

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Nav Shukla

INTRODUCTION

1.      This decision is about 3 linked disputes between the same parties. Since the disputes involve overlapping facts, I have written one decision for all 3 disputes.

2.      In dispute SC-2023-006961, Gale Thomas Michael Graham says that Roy Morris Steele wrongfully evicted him. He seeks $5,000 in total from Mr. Steele, including $800 for alleged lost rent and the remaining $4,200 for damages arising out of the wrongful eviction, including for pain and suffering.

3.      In dispute SC-2023-008763, Mr. Graham claims an additional $5,000 for landscaping and yard work he says he did for Mr. Steele. Mr. Graham says Mr. Steele owes him $7,000 for the work, but limits his claim to $5,000, the maximum available for small claims disputes at the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).

4.      Mr. Steele denies he owes Mr. Graham anything. He says he had to call the RCMP to remove Mr. Graham from his home because Mr. Graham assaulted him. Mr. Steele admits that Mr. Graham did some work for him but says that it was to repay him for various e-transfers, purchases, and loans. Mr. Steele says Mr. Graham owes him $5,313.14 in total and counterclaims $5,000 for these loans in dispute SC-2023-010019.

5.      Both parties are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

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

7.      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, the parties question each other’s credibility, or truthfulness. An oral hearing can sometimes help resolve credibility issues, but the advantages of this must be balanced against the CRT’s mandate. I must also consider the extent that cross-examination will help answer questions of credibility. In this “he said, he said” scenario, I find it unlikely that cross-examination will achieve this. Also, neither party requested an oral hearing. So, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions and documentary evidence alone.

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 CRTA section 118, in resolving these disputes 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.

Preliminary Issues

10.   In dispute SC-2023-006961, Mr. Graham says his claim is for a rent refund and damages arising out of his alleged eviction. Generally, the CRT does not have jurisdiction over residential tenancy disputes, which are decided by the Residential Tenancy Branch under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). However, the RTA does not apply to roommate disputes or disputes where a tenant shares a kitchen or bathroom with the property’s owner. The situation here appears to fall under these categories. So, I find the RTA does not apply and Mr. Graham’s claims in dispute SC-2023-006961 fall within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.

11.   Next, I note that Mr. Graham started 2 separate disputes against Mr. Steele. Because the combined value of the 2 disputes is over the CRT’s $5,000 small claims monetary limit, I considered whether Mr. Graham improperly split his claims to fit within the CRT’s jurisdiction.

12.   In De Bayer v. Yang,[1] a tribunal member found that an applicant can bring multiple claims against the same defendant if the total amount is above the CRT’s $5,000 small claims monetary limit so long as the claims are sufficiently distinct such that they are different and separate claims. Although this decision is not binding on me, I find its reasoning persuasive and apply it here.

13.   I find Mr. Graham’s claims are separate and distinct as they arise out of 2 separate alleged contracts: one contract concerning his tenancy and another contract for the landscaping and yard work. So, I find Mr. Graham has not improperly split his claims and I have considered each claim as presented.

ISSUES

14.   The issues in these disputes are:

a.    Did Mr. Steele wrongfully evict Mr. Graham? If so, what damages is Mr. Graham entitled to?

b.    Does Mr. Steele owe Mr. Graham for the landscaping and yard work he did for him? If so, how much?

c.    Must Mr. Graham repay any of the money Mr. Steele gave him? If so, how much?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

15.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Mr. Graham must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. Mr. Steele must prove his counterclaim to the same standard. I have considered all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

Background

16.   From mid-2022 to July 2023, the parties were in what I infer was an on-and-off relationship. Between January to April 2023, Mr. Steele was in Palm Springs. Mr. Steele says that during this time, Mr. Graham asked for financial help. So, Mr. Steele says he sent Mr. Graham numerous, often daily, e-transfers. Once he returned from Palm Springs, Mr. Steele says he continued to send money to Mr. Graham, purchased items for him, and even loaned him $1,250 so that Mr. Graham could retrieve 2 of his beloved rings from 2 pawn shops.

17.   In June 2023, Mr. Graham needed housing and moved into Mr. Steele’s home. During this time, and possibly a few weeks earlier as well, Mr. Graham helped complete landscaping and yard work around Mr. Steele’s property.

18.   Then, on July 1, following an altercation between the parties, Mr. Steele called the RCMP and had Mr. Graham removed from his property.

19.   With these general background facts in mind, I turn to the parties’ respective claims.

Did Mr. Steele wrongfully evict Mr. Graham?

20.   First, Mr. Graham claims that Mr. Steele wrongfully evicted him on July 1, 2023. Mr. Graham says that he moved in only 3 weeks prior and had paid Mr. Steele $800 rent for July.

21.   Mr. Steele says that Mr. Graham moved in on June 11 but says that he only paid him $500. He says $300 of this was for rent, and $200 was for a partial repayment for the money he gave Mr. Graham to retrieve his rings. Mr. Steele says that he made it clear to Mr. Graham that the living arrangement would be temporary, for up to 1 month only.

22.   The evidence does not show what amount or when Mr. Graham paid Mr. Steele the rent. In fact, Mr. Graham provided no documentary evidence in support of his claims in dispute SC-2023-006961. Since there is no evidence to support it, I find it unproven that Mr. Graham paid Mr. Steele $800 rent for July. Rather, since Mr. Steele admits it, I find that Mr. Graham paid him $500, $300 of which was for rent. I find the rent was likely meant to cover a month from June 11.

23.   The question then is whether Mr. Steele wrongfully evicted Mr. Graham on July 1. Mr. Steele says that Mr. Graham became upset with him after he told him that he did not feel comfortable with Mr. Graham staying alone at his property the next day while he was going to be away. He says that Mr. Graham threw his glass of wine at him and then grabbed him by the throat. Mr. Steele says he was scared for his safety and so called the RCMP who eventually came and escorted Mr. Graham out of his home.

24.   Mr. Graham does not dispute that the RCMP attended late on July 1. However, he says that Mr. Steele made up the incident to avoid paying him for the work he had done for him, and because Mr. Graham refused his sexual advances that evening. Mr. Graham says that once the RCMP came, he left with them peacefully.

25.   Mr. Steele’s account of events is supported by a redacted copy of the RCMP report of the incident in evidence. This document says that the reported incident was “ASSAULT-W/WEAPON OR CBH”, which I infer stands for assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm. The report further said that the weapon status was “real”. The report noted that Mr. Steele requested that the RCMP “remove [redacted] from the property as he did not feel safe in his own home”.

26.   There is no documentary evidence supporting Mr. Graham’s account. As noted, the RCMP report supports Mr. Steele’s version of events. Given this, I find it more likely than not that the altercation took place as Mr. Steele alleges. However, was this incident enough for Mr. Steele to evict Mr. Graham?

27.   Previous CRT decisions have found that roommate agreements, like this one, generally include an implied term that the parties will treat each other respectfully and safely during their tenancy.[2] Though previous CRT decisions are not binding on me, I find it appropriate to imply this term here.

28.   I find Mr. Graham’s actions on July 1 breached this implied term. I find this was a fundamental breach, entitling Mr. Steele to terminate the tenancy contract and evict Mr. Graham immediately. Given Mr. Graham’s fundamental breach, I find he is not entitled to any damages arising from the eviction, or a rent refund. So, I dismiss his claims in dispute SC-2023-006961.

Does Mr. Steele owe Mr. Graham for the landscaping and yard work he did for him?

29.   The parties do not dispute that Mr. Graham assisted Mr. Steele with some landscaping and yard work in mid-2023. Mr. Graham says that Mr. Steele has never paid him for this work. In support of his claim, Mr. Graham provided the following 7 invoices, all dated July 4, 2023:

a.    Invoice #1 for $1,601.77 for “deck prep” including sanding, taping, repairing, pressure washing and scrubbing for a total of 45 hours.

b.    Invoice #2 also for $1,601.77 for “deck prep” including sanding, taping, repairing, pressure washing and scrubbing for a total of 45 hours.

c.    Invoice #3 for $711.90 for staining the deck, hot tub skirt, and gazebo for a total of 20 hours.

d.    Invoice #5 for $711.90 for trimming dead hedges and clearing away rat nests for a total of 20 hours.

e.    Invoice #6 for $320.35 for fixing a rotten door, painting the trim and post for a patio roof as well as repainting a garage door for a total of 10 hours.

f.     Invoice #7 for $355.95 for cleaning and organizing the garage for a total of 10 hours.

g.    Invoice #8 for $361.60 for removing 3 truckloads of old firewood and 20-100lb rocks for a total of 8 hours.

30.   In his written argument and Dispute Notice for dispute SC-2023-010019, Mr. Steele says that Mr. Graham also pressure washed and painted his 40-foot fence and helped spread gravel. Mr. Graham’s invoices do not account for this work, so I infer he is not claiming for it.

31.   As noted, Mr. Steele says there was no agreement for him to pay Mr. Graham for the work. Instead, he says that Mr. Graham agreed to do this work to repay the money he had loaned to him. Mr. Steele says he never received any of Mr. Graham’s invoices, which he says supports his assertion that he never agreed to pay for the work.

32.   Mr. Graham provided no evidence to show that the parties ever discussed how much, if anything, Mr. Steele would pay him for the work. There is also no evidence that Mr. Graham ever sent the invoices to Mr. Steele to seek payment before bringing dispute SC-2023-008763. I also note that the invoices refer to the applicable tax as HST and there is no HST in British Columbia, only GST and PST. In any event, while I accept that Mr. Graham completed the work he claims for, I find it unproven that the parties had a contract where Mr. Steele agreed to pay Mr. Graham for the work.

33.   However, this does not mean that Mr. Graham is not entitled to compensation. Under the legal doctrine called quantum meruit, the CRT may award compensation to a party in the absence of a contract where the party can show that they did work of value, and it would be unjust for them not to be paid.

34.   Mr. Steele does not dispute that Mr. Graham did work of value. This is clear from his assertion that Mr. Graham agreed to do the work to pay off his debts to Mr. Steele. However, Mr. Steele argues that Mr. Graham has overstated the amount of time he spent doing the work and that he has not accounted for the fact that the two of them worked on many of the tasks together. Mr. Steele says Mr. Graham spent only a couple of hours a day on the tasks. He further says that his deck is only 400 square feet and that it took the two of them only a couple of hours to do the “deck prep” work.

35.   Other than the invoices mentioned above there is little evidence before me to support Mr. Graham’s claim for payment for the work. The only other documentary evidence is 2 photographs. The first photograph is a “before” picture of the deck and the second photograph is a before photograph of the hedges that Mr. Graham says he trimmed. There are no “after” photographs. Notably, Mr. Graham also has not provided any details about what days and how much time he spent doing each individual task. The invoices only provide a description of the work and state the total number of hours for the listed tasks as a whole.

36.   On the limited evidence before me, including the 2 photographs and the description of the work in the invoices, I agree with Mr. Steele that Mr. Graham’s stated hours appear to be inflated. I find it highly unlikely that it would take Mr. Graham 45 hours to sand, tape, repair, and pressure wash a 400 square foot deck in preparation for staining. I note that the 45 hours that Mr. Graham claims for in invoice #1 for “deck prep” appear to be repeated in invoice #2, which is for the same amount. Mr. Graham did not explain why he submitted 2 invoices for the same amount that appear to charge for the same work. Without an explanation, I find invoice #2 is likely duplicating the work listed in invoice #1. I also find it unlikely that it would take someone 20 hours to stain a deck, hot tub skirt and gazebo, or 20 hours to trim the dead hedges shown in the photograph in evidence.

37.   In the absence of evidence showing how much time Mr. Graham actually spent doing the work, I find a reasonable estimate is 70 hours. I find the $35 hourly rate Mr. Graham charged in most of the invoices reasonable. So, I find Mr. Graham is entitled to $2,450 for the landscaping and yard work on a quantum meruit basis.

Must Mr. Graham repay any of the money Mr. Steele gave him?

38.   I turn now to Mr. Steele’s counterclaim.

39.   As noted above, Mr. Steele says that Mr. Graham owes him over $5,000 for e-transfers, items he purchased for him, and for a $1,250 loan he gave Mr. Graham to retrieve his rings from pawn shops.

40.   Mr. Steele provided some bank statements in support of his claims. These statements show that Mr. Steele sent Mr. Graham 24 e-transfers between January 9 and June 14, 2023 totaling $1,760.

41.   Mr. Graham does not dispute receiving these e-transfers. However, he says he should not have to pay Mr. Steele back for various reasons. First, Mr. Graham says that the e-transfers Mr. Steele sent him were for drugs for Mr. Steele. However, the evidence shows that most of the e-transfers are from the time Mr. Steele was in Palm Springs. Given that Mr. Steele was not in town at the time, I find it unlikely that he would have sent Mr. Graham money to buy drugs for his own use.

42.   Next, Mr. Graham says the e-transfers were for gas money for him to drive down to do the landscaping and yard work. I also find this unlikely as, again, most of the e-transfers are from the time that Mr. Steele says he was in Palm Springs and Mr. Graham does not say that he started the work before Mr. Steele returned.

43.   To the extent that Mr. Graham claims that any of the e-transfers were a gift, I also find this unproven. Under the law of gifts, the person receiving the gift must prove the person giving it clearly and unmistakably intended it to be a gift, and that they accepted it. This is because the law presumes bargains, not gifts. Once a person gives a gift, it cannot be revoked.[3]

44.   Mr. Graham provided evidence of 2 instances where Mr. Steele referred to his e-transfers as gifts. However, neither of these appear to correspond with the e-transfers mentioned above. Given the absence of any evidence showing that the e-transfers at issue were gifts, I find these were not gifts and were instead loans that Mr. Graham must repay. So, I find Mr. Graham owes Mr. Steele $1,760 for the various amounts Mr. Steele e-transferred to him between January 9 and June 14, 2023.

45.   Next, Mr. Steele says he withdrew $1,250 from his bank account from an ATM in Mission, BC on June 20, 2023, and gave the cash to Mr. Graham to retrieve his rings from 2 pawn shops. Mr. Graham denies this and says the ATM withdrawal could have been for anything. Mr. Steele says that it does not make sense for him to have gone all the way to Mission to withdraw funds, when there are ATMs closer to his home. He says he only did so because the pawn shops were located in Mission.

46.   From the bank statements in evidence, this appears to be the only ATM withdrawal Mr. Steele made in Mission. It was made during the time that Mr. Graham was undisputedly living with him. Given this, and in the absence of any other evidence, I accept Mr. Steele’s evidence that he withdrew the $1,250 and gave it to Mr. Graham to retrieve his rings.

47.   As noted above, Mr. Steele says that he received $500 from Mr. Graham in June, $200 of which was to partially repay the loan for the rings. So, I find Mr. Graham owes Mr. Steele $1,050 for the ring loan.

48.   Mr. Steele also says that he paid $160 for Mr. Graham to renew his passport. A credit card statement in evidence shows a $160 payment by Mr. Steele to Service Canada on May 26, 2023. Mr. Graham did not specifically dispute this payment, so I accept that it was for Mr. Graham’s passport renewal as Mr. Steele claims. I find Mr. Graham must also repay the $160 to Mr. Steele.

49.   Mr. Steele also claims $221.55 for the amount he paid to a locksmith to re-key his locks on July 2, after Mr. Graham left his home. Mr. Steele says that he had the locks changed on July 2 because he could not find a pair of his house keys or the fob the keys were on. Mr. Graham says that he had a key for the house, which he returned on July 2. He says that even if he had kept the key, he could not have entered Mr. Steele’s home in any event because he did not have the key to open the garage door to gain access to the house door.

50.   While I accept Mr. Steele had his locks re-keyed on July 2, I am not satisfied that Mr. Graham had a key to his home which he refused to return, making it necessary for Mr. Steele to re-key the locks. Under the circumstances, I dismiss this part of Mr. Steele’s claim.

51.   In the Dispute Notice and in his evidence and argument, Mr. Steele mentions additional e-transfers and purchases. For most of these, there is no supporting evidence. For a few purchases, the only supporting evidence is an entry on a credit card statement. One of the purchases that Mr. Steele claims for is a $40 purchase at Winners for jeans that Mr. Steele says he bought for Mr. Graham to wear to his mother’s funeral. Mr. Graham first denied that Mr. Steele bought him the jeans, and in his later written argument agreed that he did and said to deduct it from the amount Mr. Steele owes him for the outdoor work. So, I find Mr. Graham owes Mr. Steele $40 for the jeans. Other than this purchase, I find the evidence does not show on a balance of probabilities that there were additional e-transfers or purchases that Mr. Steele made for Mr. Graham. So, I find Mr. Graham does not owe Mr. Steele anything further.

52.   In total, I find Mr. Graham owes Mr. Steele $3,010 for the e-transfers, purchases, and ring loan.

Conclusion

53.   In conclusion, I find Mr. Steele owes Mr. Graham $2,450 for the landscaping and yard work and Mr. Graham must repay Mr. Steele $3,010. The net effect is that Mr. Graham owes Mr. Steele $560. I order Mr. Graham to pay this amount.

54.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Mr. Steele is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $560 from October 5, 2023, the date he brought dispute SC-2023-010019 and essentially demanded payment from Mr. Graham, to the date of this decision. This equals $44.89.

55.   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. The parties’ overall success here was mixed. So, I find it appropriate for the parties to bear the cost of their own CRT fees and dispute-related expenses.

56.   I note that in dispute SC-2023-006961, a part of Mr. Graham’s claim for dispute-related expenses was for rent, storage and moving costs. Even if I had found it appropriate to award him dispute-related expenses, any rent, storage and moving costs Mr. Graham incurred cannot be claimed as dispute-related expenses. Rather, Mr. Graham should have included these as part of his claim for damages arising out of the eviction. I have already dismissed Mr. Graham’s substantive claims in dispute SC-2023-006961 above. So, I make no additional orders.

ORDERS

57.   Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order Mr. Graham to pay Mr. Steele a total of $604.89, broken down as follows:

a.    $560 in debt, and

b.    $44.89 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act.

58.   Mr. Steele is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

59.   The parties’ remaining claims are dismissed.

60.   This is a validated decision and order. Under CRTA section 58.1, 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.