A dispute between former colleagues wound up in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case after one of the men in the dispute smashed a Smart car window.
The tribunal case, which you can read online, was initiated by the victim’s spouse, AB.
According to AB, her spouse, DC, was using her car that day. She said that DC and JA, DC’s former colleague, got into an argument, which ended with JA punching out the car window and “damaging other parts.”
AB sought $1,750.02 to repair the damage.
In defence, JA claimed that DC was rolling up the window when he attempted to grab something, which caused the window to be smashed. JA said the damages AB claimed were excessive.
The tribunal didn’t see it that way.
- You might also like:
- Popular BC car shop owes thousands after wonky windshield repair
- BC man fights for compensation after movers break and lose items
- Two restaurants damaged in late-night Surrey fire
It all started on the morning of February 1, 2023. AB and DC went to work in separate vehicles, with DC taking AB’s Smart car.
According to the tribunal decision, “On the highway, she noted JA in his yellow Mustang driving aggressively toward DC before she turned off toward her destination. She did not see JA break the window or the events that immediately preceded it. Photos in evidence show shattered glass throughout the car.”
In a written statement, DC said he was driving when JA swerved toward him on the highway. Later, when DC was stopped at a gas station, the tribunal case suggests JA followed him, exited his vehicle, and began shouting slurs at DC. DC also claims that JA kicked his car “and then started to violently pull and punch the driver’s side window until it shattered.”
JA’s version of events includes the claim that DC intentionally cut him off on the highway, recorded him on his cellphone, and laughed. He also claimed that DC threw a full coffee at his Mustang. JA said this is why he reached into the car to grab the phone. When he did, he claims DC rolled the window up, deliberately trying to injure JA. His main claim was that he acted in self-defence.
Unfortunately for JA, he did not have any evidence of his claims. The tribunal said the gas station would’ve had CCTV footage, which JA did not attempt to obtain for his defence.
AB provided invoices for the damages, and the tribunal awarded her $1,120.29.
In total, JA was ordered to pay AB $1,245.29, including tribunal fees.