A BC man has lost his bid to recover what he paid for a car he bought with his girlfriend – not because he has no right to it, but because an administrative court ruled the car was worthless.
After divorcing his partner, Shatara Crowe, in May 2021, Joshua Andrews sued BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) to pay him his share of the $ 5,400 the couple paid for a 2007 Honda Civic, which they bought together in October 2020.
The CRT is an administrative body that is part of the system of public justice. It typically makes decisions in disputes over small claims, strata property disputes and motor vehicle claims up to $ 50,000.
The case shows how complicated it can be to share possessions in a relationship without detailed records and agreements.
The BC Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the division of family property under the Family Law Act, but the couple did not qualify if they lived together for 18 months and were not married.
The car was registered under Crowe’s name, according to the tribunal, and despite sharing the car and the cost of running it, she kept the car after the break-in.
The tribunal considered submitting that the couple had a verbal agreement that Crowe would keep it red if they broke out. However, the tribunal could not confirm whether such an agreement was in place.
The tribunal found that Andrews was entitled to compensation for his share of the value of the car, but not the $ 2,952 he said he paid, but half of its retail value.
Need $ 8,000 in repairs
Crowe provided a review of the car by a Vancouver Honda dealership, which shows that the car needs $ 8,000 in repairs and is rated at $ 0.
The tribunal also said Andrews had not provided enough evidence to show what the car could have taken in a private sale.
“That, the only proof of the value of the car is Vancouver Honda’s $ 0 rating,” wrote tribunal member Leah Volkers.
The April 1 ruling also addresses Andrews’ claim that Crowe owed him money he paid in annual car insurance premiums. In total, he sought $ 3,487 for his share of the value of the car and his share of what he paid for the annual insurance premium from the date they divorced.
Again, the tribunal said Andrews did not provide enough evidence to show that he had transferred Crowe money specifically for the car’s annual insurance.
What about the hair, hydro and Wi-Fi?
They provided documents showing that in February 2021, they would pay the annual $ 2,175 car insurance premium.
In Crowe’s response to the dispute, she said Andrews owed her money for payments for rent, hydro and Wi-Fi she made during and after her relationship, but the tribunal wrote that she did not file a counterclaim for these amounts. .
Volkers denied Andrews compensation for the dispute, which could run between $ 125 and $ 200, because he failed in his claim. Crowe does not pay CRT fees or claim any dispute-related expenses.