B.C. exes spar over car and T-shirt printer in legal dispute after breakup

Getting your stuff back after a breakup can sometimes be difficult. For one former B.C. couple, their fight over several items landed them in a small claims dispute.

Aminata Renaerts filed a case with the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal against her former romantic partner, Romario Gittens, claiming the respondent had their car, car keys, T-shirt printer, mailbox keys, and house keys.

Renaerts, who was self-represented, wanted Gittens to return the items or pay $4,400 for them.

Gittens, also self-represented, told the Tribunal that while the applicant did pay for the car, the vehicle was registered in their name. They also added that the T-shirt printer was a Christmas gift from Renaerts.

PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal’s decision explains that the dispute boiled down to two issues: who owns the car and whether the T-shirt printer was a gift between the former partners.

Tribunal Member Mark Henderson added that while the applicant claimed for house keys and mailbox keys, the applicant said in their submissions that the respondent has since returned the house keys.

“The applicant did not provide any details about the mailbox keys in their submissions or evidence. So, I dismiss the claim for house and mailbox keys,” Henderson wrote.

Determining the vehicle ownership was a little more muddy. While the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal did find that Renaerts “undisputedly paid for a car,” the applicant did not provide an owner’s certificate or supporting details about the car, like its make or model.

“The applicant provided a picture of the car, but the picture only shows a white car with no other defining features such as a logo, brand name, or model name,” said the decision. “The applicant also provided no evidence about how much they paid for the car or when they bought the car.

“The respondent agrees that the applicant paid for a car. However, the respondent says their name is on the insurance. The respondent did not provide a copy of the owner’s certificate either. Since the respondent says their name is on the insurance, I infer that the respondent says their name is on the owner’s certificate.”

Because Renaerts did not provide an owner’s certificate that included their name, the tribunal said they had not proven they are the registered owner of the disputed vehicle. So their claim for the car and car keys’ return was dismissed.

Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

However, the applicant did score a win at the tribunal when it came to the coveted T-shirt printer. The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal member explained that under the law of gifts, the person claiming to receive the gift must prove the item was a gift and inconsistent with any other intention

Renaerts provided a copy of the invoice for the T-shirt printer dated Nov. 21, 2023, and totalling $304.63.

“The applicant says they bought the T-shirt printer and put it under their Christmas tree but never intended to give the T-shirt printer to the respondent,” wrote Henderson.

“The respondent says the applicant gave them the T-shirt printer as a Christmas gift. The respondent said he had wanted a T-shirt printer for some time. The respondent did not provide any other supporting information to prove the T-shirt printer was a gift.

“Neither party said how long their relationship lasted or whether gift-giving was a normal part of their relationship. I find the respondent has not provided any supporting evidence or details to establish that the T-shirt printer was a gift. So, I find the T-shirt printer was not a gift.”

Overall, Gittens was ordered to reimburse Renaerts a total of $321.86, including $304.63 in damages and $17.23 in pre-judgment interest.