Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal centered on whether the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) could rely on common human experience and common-sense assumptions when assessing credibility and making factual findings about the instructions given to the appellant regarding the convertible top.

• Key evidentiary dispute involved conflicting versions of what a PS Motors Ltd. employee (Justin) told the appellant about lowering the roof while a lift rod was missing, and whether the CRT was required to accept the appellant’s account.

• The appellant alleged the CRT made a critical factual finding with no evidentiary foundation by referring to the possibility of manually retracting the top, characterizing this as speculation instead of evidence-based reasoning.

• Procedural fairness concerns arose because the CRT proceeded solely by written submissions and documents, with the appellant arguing that an oral hearing was necessary to resolve the credibility contest and that the process was therefore unfair.

• On judicial review and appeal, the courts held that the CRT’s credibility findings were grounded in the record, particularly the undisputed prior instruction not to move the top until repair, and that reliance on common-sense assumptions in weighing credibility was permissible.

• The Court of Appeal upheld the CRT decision, finding no reviewable error or unfairness, dismissed the appeal, and awarded costs to the successful party, PS Motors Ltd., without specifying an exact amount.

Facts and background
The appellant, Cheryl Stein, owned a Volkswagen Beetle convertible and hired PS Motors Ltd. (“PS Motors”) in 2021 to replace the left rear window regulator. During the repair, one of the lift rods for the soft top broke. The parties agreed that Ms. Stein would pay for a replacement lift rod while PS Motors would install it at no charge. Ms. Stein returned the next day for installation. Because of COVID-19 concerns, she asked PS Motors’ employees not to enter the vehicle. Ms. Stein said that an employee, Justin, told her to put the top down, and when she did so, she heard a crunching noise and the convertible top was damaged. PS Motors accepted that Ms. Stein lowered the top and that this caused the damage, but asserted that Justin had instructed her not to lower the top and that she disregarded this instruction. Ms. Stein claimed $2,999 in damages for repair costs and mental distress.

Proceedings before the Civil Resolution Tribunal
The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), an online tribunal designed to provide an accessible, speedy, economical and informal process for small disputes, had jurisdiction over the claim. Both parties proceeded in writing, filing documentary evidence but no live testimony. Ms. Stein submitted her notes of the incident and an email to PS Motors. PS Motors submitted an email and a statement from its manager but did not file a direct statement from Justin. Ms. Stein did not request an oral hearing. The CRT adjudicator first held that Ms. Stein had not proven negligent repair or that PS Motors negligently broke the lift rod, in part due to a lack of expert evidence. On the key credibility issue about instructions to lower the top, the adjudicator considered the competing accounts and stated she must decide whose evidence was more credible. In the absence of independent documentary evidence, she looked to what was more consistent with common human experience. The adjudicator found it unlikely that Justin would instruct Ms. Stein to operate the convertible top while a lift rod was missing and relied on undisputed evidence that PS Motors had earlier told her not to move the top until the lift rod was repaired. She concluded Ms. Stein had not proven that Justin instructed her to lower the top and dismissed her claim in full.

Judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Ms. Stein petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia for judicial review of the CRT decision. She argued the decision was patently unreasonable because the adjudicator had, in her view, speculated about the top being retractable manually without evidentiary support and erroneously relied on human experience. She also claimed procedural unfairness because there was no oral hearing and no direct evidence from Justin. The court identified the applicable standards: reasonableness for the CRT’s substantive decision and a fairness standard for its procedures. It held that the adjudicator was entitled to rely on common-sense assumptions in assessing credibility, referencing appellate and Supreme Court authority recognizing that common-sense underlies credibility findings. The court noted that the remark about manually retracting the top appeared in the summary of PS Motors’ position and that the core credibility findings were grounded in paragraph 35 of the CRT decision, which focused on prior instructions not to move the top and Ms. Stein’s undisputed acknowledgment of those instructions. As to procedure, the court found that the CRT had discretion over hearing format, that Ms. Stein had not requested an in-person or oral hearing, and that she did not show any evidence she was unable to present in writing. Given the tribunal’s mandate for accessible and economical resolution, the court concluded the written process was fair and dismissed the petition.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal and final outcome
Ms. Stein then appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, again challenging the CRT’s factual findings and alleging that both the tribunal and the reviewing court had been overly deferential and unfair. She argued that the CRT had made palpable and overriding factual errors in rejecting her account of Justin’s instructions and had overused its tribunal powers. The court held that, under the governing standards of review, there was no basis to interfere. It agreed that the CRT adjudicator was entitled to rely on common-sense and human experience in making credibility determinations and that the findings were firmly rooted in the evidence, including the undisputed warning not to operate the top while the lift rod was unrepaired. The court further held that the CRT’s choice to proceed on written submissions did not breach procedural fairness, particularly in the absence of a request for an oral hearing and any demonstrated prejudice. The tribunal’s factual conclusions were found to be error-free and available on the record. The appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving intact the CRT’s dismissal of Ms. Stein’s $2,999 claim. The court ordered costs in favour of the successful party, PS Motors Ltd., but did not specify the exact amount of those costs.