Missing Evidence

Again and again it happens. The more I review Claim Resolution Tribunal decisions the more I see it. Missed opportunities to present evidence. Many Claimants and Respondents in the tribunal seem confused about how to bring their evidence before the tribunal. Without evidence to support your side, you are just spinning your wheels.

Without commenting on what could have been different in their respective cases, here are some recent examples:

Jivraj v. Del Palaganas 2024 BCCRT 1132

“The problem for Mr. Jivraj is that they provided no evidence, submissions, or argument for these claims.”

Power v. Simpkins 2024 BCCRT 817

“22. The applicant says the accident caused cracks in the condenser. The applicant says he did not notice the air conditioner had issues until after the weather got warmer.

23.   The difficulty for the applicant is he has provided no evidence, such as photos of the condenser or a statement from his repair shop, that the accident caused damage to the air conditioning unit of his truck. So, I find he hasn’t proven these later repairs were a result of the accident and I dismiss his claim for reimbursement.”

Reid v. ICBC 2024 BCCRT 804

“35.   As Mr. Reid did not provide any evidence about his wife’s work schedule or when she was unable to care for the children, I find he is not entitled to a benefit under this section.

Mr. Reid has not provided any evidence that he has paid anything, so I find he has not proven entitlement to ADL benefits.”

51.   I accept that over 2021, Mr. Reid sold some wood from his property, which was accounted for under his income replacement benefit. However, he provides no support for the “millions” he said he could have achieved from the City of Courtney if he had sold his property as “development property”. There is no evidence Mr. Reid does not still own the property, which could still be sold for some amount in the future.

52.   Mr. Reid has also not provided evidence of any payments to another person to perform his duties with respect to working on his property. So, I find Mr. Reid is not entitled to family enterprise benefits, and I dismiss his claim.”

This could not be further from an exhaustive list. By searching CRT decisions where a party is representing his or herself, it is common to find rulings similar to those above. After the frustrations arising from making a claim, and the time and money spent, parties are not having their cases truly assessed on its merits with missing evidence.

If you are considering a CRT claim, or a small claims action, it is vitally important that all necessary and relevant evidence is obtained and properly presented. Please feel free to contact our office with any evidentiary questions you might have.

Sometimes it isn’t about the money

The Supreme Court of BC does not have a monetary jurisdictional cap, it can deal with millions, or billions of dollars. The Provincial Court of BC is capped at $35,000, still a considerable amount of money. The CRT deals with debts owed up to $5,000. But what about even smaller amounts, or claims that are not primarily focused upon the all-important dollar? Minor disputes, grievances, points of contention?

Some of those claims are still dealt with by the Provincial Court, depending upon the circumstance. The CRT often deals with even smaller claims where the lowest possible filing fees are necessary (usually $150)because the claim isn’t for debt. An example of this is as follows:

Should you be allowed to have a hot tub on your rooftop patio? Is it furniture?

Emmerton v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3407, 2022 BCCRT 872

In this case the applicants placed an inflatable hot tub on a their rooftop patio. The strata says its bylaws do not permit hot tubs on patios. Emmerton examined another similar case where the tribunal was asked to determine whether a moveable hot tub is furniture:

“Trent v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3454, 2020 BCCRT 358, a tribunal member engaged in a thorough review of court and CRT decisions involving an interpretation of the terms “furniture” and “patio furniture”.

Here, I find there is no similar permanent quality to the applicants’ hot tub. As noted, it is inflatable. The applicants provided video evidence showing that the hot tub can be inflated or deflated within about 5 minutes, and it is easily folded and carried by 2 people when deflated.

What I like about this case is that everyone has an opinion about whether an inflatable hot tub is “furniture”, and everyone has an opinion about what constitutes “moveable”. The desire to have a hot tub on your patio is understood by everyone.

I have been following this case for some time now and I can report that it reached the Court of Appeal.

A fun read by Lisa Steacy of CTV news can be found here:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-s-highest-court-hands-down-decision-in-inflatable-hot-tub-dispute-1.7083445

I encourage you to read the article, but I will save you some time and advise that the BCCA dismissed the appeal. The hot tub could stay.

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/23/15/2023BCSC1571.htm