The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal had an interesting case to deal with involving someone allegedly exposing their buttocks.
IB told the tribunal that she suffered emotional harm due to LP’s conduct and sought $500 in damages.
LP said they did not perform the act, thereby did not cause IB’s emotional harm. IB had to prove to the tribunal that “more likely than not,” LP did what they were accused of.
- You might also like:
- Big bill at BC Costco turns pals into former friends facing off in legal fight
- BC homeowner ordered to pay strata thousands for listing home on Airbnb
- "Fridge is warm": BC realtor accused of selling home with faulty appliances
IB and LP are neighbours in a townhouse complex. The tribunal decision, posted publicly, states that “relations have not been friendly for many years.”
IB and LP both offered their own evidence about the conduct they were forced to deal with.
According to IB, on June 30, LP “exposed their buttocks when in full view of [IB’s] kitchen window with the intent of upsetting [IB] and her spouse.”
IB submitted a video as evidence. LP explained that the figure in the video could not have been them because they were working when the alleged incident occurred. LP added that IB has not proved or explained why she suffered any harm.
The video shows a figure bending over and pulling their pants down.
“However, due to the video’s significantly poor quality, I am not able to identify the individual or confirm exposure of any body part,” the tribunal said.
It added that IB “has not met her burden in proving that [LP] performed the alleged conduct.”
The BC tribunal added that even if the video established that LP did attempt to inflict mental distress, IB’s case would still be dismissed because they failed to prove damages using medical evidence.