Date Issued: July 14, 2025

File: SC-2024-002717

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Shen v. 0840936 B.C. Ltd., 2025 BCCRT 954

Between:

XUELIANG SHEN

APPLICANT

And:

0840936 B.C. LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about a damaged tooth.

2.      The applicant, Xueliang Shen, says he chipped his tooth while eating at the respondent restaurant, 0840936 B.C. Ltd. The applicant claims $4,067.30 for dental expenses.

3.      The respondent says the applicant could not produce the object that allegedly damaged his tooth. So, the respondent says it is not liable.

4.      The applicant is self-represented. The respondent is represented by its director.

5.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

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

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, I find that 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 that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

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 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.

10.   I considered whether the respondent is the proper party in this dispute. The applicant’s evidence shows that he was dining at SimonHolt Food & Drink. However, he brought his claim against the respondent numbered company. The respondent does not argue that it was an improper party, so I infer that the respondent does business as SimonHolt Food & Drink and is the correct respondent in this dispute.

ISSUE

11.   The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent must pay the applicant the claimed $4,067.30 for dental expenses.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove his 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.

13.   On January 1, 2024, the applicant dined at the respondent restaurant. The applicant says that while eating a salad, he bit a hard, tiny object and felt pain in one of his teeth. He says he reported the situation to the duty manager.

14.   On January 3, 2024, the applicant went to his dentist who found and removed a tooth fragment. The applicant subsequently emailed the restaurant owner requesting that the restaurant cover his medical expenses and future treatment.

15.   The respondent says that the applicant did not produce the alleged foreign object, so it denies that it is liable.

16.   To establish negligence, the applicant must show that the respondent owed a duty of care, failed to meet the expected standard of care, and that the failure caused damages which were reasonably foreseeable (see: Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27).

17.   I find that the respondent owed a duty of care to the applicant as its customer.

18.   The standard of care is reasonableness. The fact that the applicant fractured his tooth does not, on its own, prove the respondent breached their duty of care. In his email to the respondent, the applicant said that he initially saw the object but then lost it. He said he believed it to be “not a rock, but more like small metal particles (or very hard rock)”.

19.   The applicant provided a photograph showing that the salad was served on the same plate as ribs. Without evidence of the foreign object, it seems just as likely that the damage may have been caused by something else, such as a bone or peppercorn that found its way into the salad. This scenario, on its own, would not indicate that the respondent breached the standard of care required because it is reasonable that a bone or peppercorn may be found in a meal that includes ribs.

20.   In circumstances like these, where the applicant was unable to find the foreign object but says it was the immediate cause of the fracture, it would significantly help the applicant to have expert evidence. A dentist’s opinion about the nature of the dental fracture would allow me to determine whether it was more likely than not that the injury occurred due to biting a foreign object, or whether there were other likely explanations. However, the applicant did not provide expert evidence to support his position.

21.   Without additional evidence, I find that the applicant has not proven that the respondent breached the standard of care when it prepared and served the salad. So, I find that the applicant has not proven the respondent was negligent and I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

22.   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 the applicant was unsuccessful, I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of CRT fees. Neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

23.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims.