Escalating neighbour spat: BC couple says man hit them with his car

A neighbour dispute made its way into court after a couple claimed that a man tried to run them over with his car.

Michael Bahmutsky and Irina Bahmutsky live next door to Morgan Griffiths in a BC townhouse complex. The couple filed a small claim with the Civil Resolution Tribunal against Griffiths because he “intentionally drove his car into their carport and tried to hit them,” the document reads.

When Michael tried to get out of the car’s way, the Bahmutskys said he scratched his leg and showed photos of the injury.

According to the CRT dispute, the RCMP was contacted after the May 2023 incident, and the Crown charged Griffiths with two offences under the Criminal Code.

“Since the charges have not been proven in court, I find this evidence does not help the Bahmutskys in proving their claim,” tribunal member Jeffrey Drozdiak said.

In his dispute response, Griffiths denied hitting the couple with his car and said it was an accident that he drove his car into the Bahmutskys’ carport. He said he reversed his car out of the carport when he realized his mistake.

However, Drozdiak said, “I find Mr. Griffiths’ statement is not credible.”

The Bahmutskys suggest they’ve been Griffith’s neighbour for six years. Based on photos provided to the CRT, Drozdiak added, “I find the carports are easily distinguishable to a longtime resident.”

yoshi0511/shutterstock

The Bahmutskys also provided a Recognizance After Allegation (AKA a section 810 peace bond) for Griffiths, where he was not to communicate with Michael or go near his property.

Based on Griffith saying he was aware of the peace bond at the time the evidence Drozdiak said, “I find Mr. Griffiths did not ‘mistakenly’ drive into the Bahmutskys’ carport.”

“I find a driver can also easily see if someone is in a carport before pulling in. The carport is open on three sides and is only big enough to fit one vehicle. So, I find Mr. Griffiths likely saw the Bahmutskys in the carport and then drove his vehicle into the carport,” Drozdiak added.

The Bahmutskys sought $2,000 for “significant emotional harm caused by the car incident,” according to the small claims decision.

“The Bahmutskys say after the incident, they could not collect themselves for a few days. They say they felt dispirited. Even now, they claim they still do not feel safe. The Bahmutskys say they have no choice but to pay attention to every vehicle near them, which they find stressful.”

Drozdiak acknowledged that the car incident was stressful for the Bahmutskys, but he did not find that they had provided sufficient evidence to prove damages.

“A mental injury is not proven by simply being upset,” Drozdiak said. “The Bahmutskys must show they suffered a serious and prolonged issue that rises above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that come with living in civil society.”

Due to the lack of medical evidence to prove they suffered a mental injury, the tribunal member dismissed their claim for mental harm.

Couple claims Griffiths “smashed their electric trike”

A part of this dispute in court also included an issue involving an electric trike. The Bahmutskys said a few months before Griffiths hit them with his car, he “smashed their electric trike with his car.”

They aimed to be paid $900.73 for repairing the trike.

Griffiths said, “he heard that someone damaged the Bahmutskys’ trike, but he had nothing to do with it,” the CRT document reads.

Drozdiak said they found this claim “based in negligence.” So, to prove Griffiths was negligent, the Bahmutskys need to show Griffiths owed them a duty of care, that his actions breached the standard of care, that the couple suffered a loss, and that the breach caused the loss.

Bahmutskys’ video proof

The Bahmutskys did provide video footage from the time of the incident, which is suggested to be taken from a security camera at the couple’s front entrance.

Aleksandrkozak/Shutterstock

In the video, a woman is seen walking down some stairs, whom the Bahmutskys said is Griffiths’ mother. Then, car headlights can be seen, showing a car pulling out of the area around Griffiths’ carport and driving into the Bahmutskys’ carport before an audible crashing sound as the car hits something.

The document continues to describe the video, which details that car headlights then show the car pulling out of the Bahmutskys’ carport and driving back to the area around Griffiths’ carport.

“A car’s horn then goes off, which I infer is someone locking the car,” the document reads.

As a car horn goes off, Griffiths’ mother goes back up the stairs and a man appears in the video, whom the Bahmutskys say is Griffiths.

“To explain the audible crashing sound, the Bahmutskys provided a picture of the damaged trike,” the document reads. “The picture shows the trike in the carport with a crumpled front wheel. I find the trike’s damage is consistent with a car hitting it.”

The tribunal member said the video was “strong circumstantial evidence that Mr. Griffiths drove his car into the trike.”

While a police investigation report concludes that there is not enough evidence to charge Griffiths with a criminal offence, Drozdiak said they found the police decision was not binding for them.

“The burden of proof for a criminal offence is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This is a higher standard of proof than the civil standard’s ‘more likely than not,'” Drozdiak said.

Griffiths did not provide any evidence or dispute the video that Bahmutskys shared.

“Without any evidence to the contrary, I find it is more likely than not that Mr. Griffiths damaged the trike and breached the standard of care. So, I am satisfied that the Bahmutskys have proven Mr. Griffiths was negligent.”

Griffiths ordered to pay neighbours

Drozdiak said the Bahmutskys were entitled to $514.73, which they said would help fix the trike.

The Bahmutskys also sought money to assemble and adjust the trike’s parts and repair the damaged carport wall, but because they did not provide any evidence, this claim was denied.

Griffiths has been ordered to pay the Bahmutskys $714.33 in total, which includes damages, pre-judgment interest, CRT fees, and dispute-related expenses.