British Columbian seeks refund in court for helping a homeless person
A British Columbian is seeking a refund of more than $550 after helping a homeless person with their expenses.
Margaret Eileen De Haan filed a small claim with the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal after helping a person who is homeless, who goes by WP in the decision. Eileen said they paid for furniture, personal hygiene items, and laundry services.
They called on Sources Community Resources Society to reimburse them for all that they paid because Eileen claimed they were a community partner and WP was a client. They sought $561.03.
Sources did not deny Eileen helped WP. However, according to the CRT decision, Sources said, “Eileen took it upon themself to help WP financially, and it should not be held responsible for that decision.”
The respondent, Jason Blaschuk, a program manager with Sources, denied Eileen’s claim and said WP was not a Sources client. Additionally, he said that Sources didn’t ask Eileen for help. Sources said Eileen was not an employee or contractor, and “at no time did it ask or authorize Eileen to incur the expenses for which they claim reimbursement.”
Eileen argued that a Sources employee accepted WP as a client on March 16, 2023. However, the tribunal member said, “The evidence does not support this.”
Emails between Eileen and a Sources employee show they arranged to meet on March 16 so that Eileen could provide the employee with WP’s documentation to begin the process of accessing certain services. “However, there is no evidence Eileen provided [the Sources employee] with the necessary documentation or that [the Sources employee] confirmed Sources was taking WP on as a client,” tribunal member Megan Stewart said.
On March 16, Eileen and WP also met with a housing and outreach worker. While the tribunal member found that the two could not fully agree on what was discussed, “there is no evidence [the outreach worker] agreed to take WP on as a client, or told Eileen that Sources could pay for expenditures they had made to support WP.”
Stewart said even if Sources took on WP as a client, “there is no evidence this would have made Sources responsible to repay Eileen for amounts they already spent on WP.”
While they recognized Eileen’s efforts to help WP, the tribunal member dismissed their claim for reimbursement against Sources.