A woman who lives in B.C. hired someone to perform some repairs on an e-bike, which included rebuilding its battery.
She told the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal that the man she hired to repair the bike did so poorly.
In the tribunal decision, the owner of the bike and applicant claimed $446.25 in damages for a refund, in a case that could be good for e-bike owners to take note of, especially when it comes to servicing their bikes.
The B.C. e-bike repairman and respondent in the case denied that the battery rebuild was deficient and claimed that the owner didn’t give him enough time to diagnose the bike further.
On Nov. 19, 2024, the B.C. e-bike owner took her bike to the respondent for a tune-up and battery rebuild. She told him that she used to get 36 km per charge, and now she’s only getting 22. The tribunal decision states that the respondent outsourced the work to a third party, referred to as RP.
The applicant was charged $619.50, which included $446.25 for the battery rebuild. While she had some issues with the tune-up, the case mainly pertained to the battery rebuild.
After receiving her bike back, she noticed it wouldn’t hold power. She contacted the respondent again and explained there might be an issue with the new battery.
He denied that the issue was related to the new battery but eventually agreed to test it.
She brought the bike back in, and the respondent noticed that one of the battery’s cells had failed, and it was replaced before the bike was returned.
This time, the bike was able to keep power, but the range was still only around 22 km/h.
“The parties’ working relationship continued to deteriorate,” the tribunal said.
In December 2024, the applicant sent her bike in to Tyrone at Royer Batteries, which is in Surrey. According to the tribunal, Tyrone has seven years of experience repairing and building new batteries.
In an email on Jan. 31, 2025, Tyrone explained that the battery had 13 cell groups, but that seven of them contained less capacity than the rest, which caused the battery to be “out of balance.”
He also said there were no signs of replacement.
“He said the standard of build ‘might be barely acceptable,’ but the battery’s performance was ‘well below.'”
On Dec. 17, 2025, in more emails from Tyrone, he explained that the battery had been rebuilt with a failing cell group, which led him to the conclusion that used cells were installed, rather than new ones.
Neither the respondent nor RP responded to Tyrone’s evidence.
Due to Tyrone’s evidence, the tribunal sided with the applicant and agreed that the battery was likely rebuilt using used cells, which meant that the respondent breached the agreement.
He was ordered to pay the e-bike owner $571.25, which included a battery rebuild refund and $125 in tribunal fees.