A woman from B.C. initiated a legal dispute against her neighbours, and it all revolved around a costly kayak.
The applicant in the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute sought monetary compensation, claiming that she had lent a kayak to the two respondents in the dispute and that they had refused to return it.
She sought $2,570 for the replacement of the kayak, a $250 delivery fee, $1,000 for loss of use, and $10 for expenses.
In response, the respondents claimed that the kayak was a gift and that they weren’t legally obligated to return it, “although they are willing to.” Additionally, the respondents said that they have restored and maintained the kayak at their own expense for the last five years. They also filed a counterclaim for $1,000 if they were ordered to return the kayak.
All parties involved in the case reside in a rural area near the coast. The applicant’s home is across the street from the respondents. In 2016, the applicant bought a Delta kayak and kept it at a public beach, allowing various neighbours to use it.
Three years later, in the summer of 2019, the applicant relocated to Vancouver for work. Before she left, she spoke with one of the respondents about the kayak. The applicant claimed that the respondent offered to keep the kayak at her property while the applicant was in Vancouver.
The applicant accepted the offer, but one of the respondent’s claims was very different. She stated that the applicant claimed to have no use for the kayak anymore because she was moving from B.C. to Ontario and had offered the vessel as a gift.
After the applicant moved, the respondents picked up the kayak and stored it on their property.
Neither side saw the other for three years, but the applicant provided some emails as evidence. In emails from 2020 and 2021, the applicant stated that she had to stay in Vancouver due to the pandemic and was grateful for being allowed to keep her kayak on the respondents’ property. The respondents accused the applicant of fabricating the emails.
In 2022, the applicant greeted the respondents at a community mailbox near their home, inquiring about the return of the kayak. The respondents said they were under the impression it was a gift. They added that if she changed her mind about it being a gift, they needed some time to return the kayak because they had given it to her daughter, who lived elsewhere.
Later that same year, the tribunal noted an “unpleasant” interaction between the two parties. The respondents wrote in a letter that they were willing to come to a fair settlement, but only if the applicant wrote a written retraction of her “public accusation” that the kayak was stolen. The applicant did not respond to the letter.
Because it was the respondents who alleged the kayak was a gift, it was up to them to prove that. The tribunal stated that it was likely that the applicant allowed the respondents to store and use the kayak while she was away.
Because the respondents could not prove it was a gift, the tribunal found the applicant had “proven detinue.”
While the tribunal did not order the respondents to return the kayak, it did order them to reimburse the applicant for its value of $1,000.
- You might also like:
- Surrey furniture store owes thousands after loveseat switcheroo
- Pepper shaker and other belongings come between B.C. roommates in legal fight
- Unapproved colour changes lead to dispute between B.C. homeowners and strata
Want to stay on top of all things Vancouver? Follow us on X