A former couple battled it out in a B.C. civil case over who was the rightful owner of a 2003 Honda Civic.
According to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, AL and DN were the former romantic partners who broke up, and when they did, DN kept the 2003 Honda Civic.
AL claimed $5,000 for the value of the Civic.
In response, DN said that he was the Civic’s sole registered owner and that the claim should be dismissed. He also said the Civic’s value was way less than $5,000.
DN also filed a counterclaim, claiming $5,000 for alleged purchases that AL made on his credit card without permission, as well as cash and belongings that were unreturned, moving expenses, loss of a damage deposit, undue stress and the loss of his job.
According to the decision, the tribunal wasn’t aware of how long the couple had known each other, but did indicate that they moved in together in October 2023 before separating in April 2024 when AL moved out.
An RCMP report states that on April 23, 2024, DN went to AL’s place, claiming she stole the civic from him the day before. The RCMP officer who was present allowed DN to take the Civic because registration documents showed he was the registered owner.
AL reiterated that the Honda Civic was hers despite it being registered to DN. DN said that the civic was “to be his car and shared with her in their relationship.”
The tribunal took that to mean the former B.C. couple were joint owners. The tribunal also took this opportunity to point out that the law distinguishes between legal and beneficial or actual ownership. Factors include who paid for the vehicle, who it was registered to, who paid insurance, who had keys, and where the car is kept.
Using those factors, the tribunal determined that it was AL who was the actual owner.
It was undisputed that AL paid for the vehicle by trading it for her previous vehicle. Both parties also said they agreed that DN would hold the registration and be the principal driver to get a better insurance rate.
DN told the tribunal that he also had a car that he sold to pay down debt and save money, but he didn’t tell the tribunal when that happened.
Evidence submitted about who drove more was neutral. DN said that AL’s licence was suspended and that he drove AL around, but she also said that she drove the Civic despite not having a licence.
Evidence also indicated that AL paid insurance in full, paid for gas, and paid for repairs, which DN never did.
In short, most of the ownership factors pointed toward AL, not DN.
AL said she didn’t want DN to return the Civic, just its value, which she deemed was $5,000, because she was worried he’d destroy the car or make it unusable before return.
The tribunal disagreed with the $5,000 valuation and instead placed a value of $1,200 on it due to varying factors.
Factoring in tribunal fees, DN was ordered to pay AL $1,370.35 within 21 days of the decision.