B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered the owner of an auto company to pay $405 to someone he claimed he’d never heard of.
Rahul Sethi told tribunal member Amanda Binnie he was hired by William Alikin to deliver cars. He claims $405 in unpaid delivery and fuel expenses.
“The respondent says they have never heard of this individual, and I infer is asking me to dismiss the applicant’s claim,” Binnie said in an Aug. 15 decision.
She said Sethi sued Alikin in their personal capacity.
Binnie said while neither party provided a copy of a contract, there was some evidence that Sethi was hired by “Motodyne Auto."
Still, the tribunal member said, neither party provided submissions on this point.
Binnie said Sethi provided the text message history between the parties, which she found showed Sethi only dealt with Alikin.
But, Binnie wrote, there was no indication in those messages that Alikin was acting as an agent for a company.
Based on the correspondence, Binnie found a reasonable person would assume Alikin was acting as a sole proprietorship.
“The respondent did not raise an objection to being personally named,” Binnie said. “So, I find the applicant is entitled to sue the respondent in their personal capacity.”
Binnie said Sethi did not provide a detailed background of the parties’ interactions.
“However, I infer from the evidence that the respondent hired him via a Craigslist ad in August 2021,” she said. “Though [Sethi] refers to ‘$15 per car,’ I have no evidence on where or to whom these vehicles were being delivered.”
She said Sethi was paid with no issues for the first two weeks, but then the two had a disagreement and Alikin did not pay him for the last week.
Turning to Alikin’s argument in his dispute response that he had no record of Sethi, Binnie noted Alikin asked for Sethi’s driver’s licence or social insurance number.
The tribunal found while Sethi did not provide his social insurance number, his driver’s licence was clearly shown in more than one piece of evidence.
However, Binnie said, despite several reminders from tribunal staff, Alikin chose not to provide submissions or evidence of their own in the dispute. That, she said, allows the tribunal to draw an adverse inference.
“An adverse inference is when the [tribunal] assumes that the party did not provide the evidence because it would not help their case,” she said.
As such, Binnie found it likely Alikin either was aware of who Sethi was or became aware after seeing the evidence he provided. She found Alikin did hire Sethi.
“This is further supported by the fact that the phone number shown in [Sethi’s] text messages is the same [Alikin] provided in their dispute response,” she said.
“So, does the respondent owe the applicant anything?” she asked. “I find that they do.”
Binnie said Sethi claimed he delivered 23 vehicles for the week of Aug. 23, 2021, which, at $15 per vehicle, totalled $345. He also provided receipts showing he paid $60 for gas the week.
That was supported by gas receipts Sethi texted to Alikin, the ruling noted.
In total, Sethi said Alikin owed him $405, the amount claimed in the dispute.
Binnie said Sethi notified Alikin of that total by text message on Aug. 30, 2021.
“[Alikin] responded ‘got it thanks’ to this, which I find implies their agreement to this amount,” Binnie said.
