Woman takes ex to court for $4,500 she paid during their relationship

Vergani Fotografia/Shutterstock

A woman in BC sued her ex-partner with the aim of reclaiming over $4,500 after paying for items and services for him while they were in a romantic relationship.

In a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case, Leslie King said she wanted to be reimbursed for a gaming computer, tooth extraction, tires, and tools she had bought for Anthony Orel.

However, the respondent, Orel, denied he was responsible for paying King back. He claimed he already repaid her for some items and added other purchases she made for him were gifts.

According to the civil claim, King provided a credit card statement as evidence, which proved she had purchased a gaming computer in November 2020.

Orel admitted King paid for the computer for him but said the couple agreed he’d fix King’s vehicle in exchange. King didn’t deny this but said Orel didn’t complete the work on the vehicle, and it later broke down and had to be “scrapped.”

In response, Orel said he finished the work and told King the oil needed to be changed before they drove the vehicle.

“He says Ms. King allowed someone else to drive the vehicle without changing the oil, which ‘killed the engine,'” the decision reads. “Ms. King denies this and says Mr. Orel’s failure to complete the work on their vehicle is what caused it to break down.”

A few months later, King purchased an air compressor for Orel, which the now ex-couple agreed Orel would use to work on vehicles in their garage.

You might also like:

However, when Orel moved out of their home, King said he could take the air compressor.

King admitted she agreed Orel could take it because they had no use for it, but it was “not our agreement” for him to sell it and keep the earnings.

King said Orel should have kept the sale proceeds because “he ‘abandoned’ them in a home Ms. King could not afford on their own.”

Despite this argument, the tribunal member said they didn’t find King’s point relevant to the issue of whether Orel should repay for the air compressor.

“Once a gift has been made, it cannot be revoked,” the member said, dismissing her claim.

In March 2021, King paid for Orel’s dental bill but once again argued it was a gift because King offered to pay “no agreement for repayment.”

However, Orel didn’t provide evidence to support his argument.

In regards to the tools and tires King paid for, Orel did agree the purchase was a loan. But he said he had already paid King back in a $1,000 e-transfer.

Although Orel e-transferred King $1,000, they disagree about what this payment was for.

“Ms. King says Mr. Orel ‘randomly’ transferred this amount because they were on amicable terms at the time and because he ‘felt bad’ for leaving them with higher expenses in the house. I find Ms. King essentially argues the $1,000 was a gift, so the burden is on them to prove the gift,” the decision reads.

While neither King nor Orel was able to provide solid evidence to support their claim regarding what the e-transfer was for, the tribunal member said, “I find Ms. King more credible and find it more likely the $1,000 was intended as a gift, rather than repayment for the tools.”

Orel has proven repayment for the truck tires as the tribunal member said the “difficulty” is King used cash from their business chequing account to pay for the tires.

However, while the tribunal member understood King is likely the corporation’s principal, “a corporation is a separate legal entity and is distinct from its directors, officers and shareholders.”

“Because the source of the cash for the tires is undisputedly the corporation rather than Ms. King personally, I find Ms. King does not have standing, or a legal right, to bring a claim in their name to recover a debt owed to the corporation. So, I dismiss this claim,” the member added.

Out of the $4,562.45 King hoped to reclaim, the tribunal ordered Orel to pay $2,395.05 to their ex-partner. Part of the ordered payment is for the gaming computer, tooth extraction and tools. $76.43 is for pre-judgment interest, and $62.50 is for CRT fees.