A B.C. man wanted reimbursement for a car he bought with his ex. But a tribunal told him it's worth $0

A B.C. man has lost his bid to recover what he paid for a vehicle bought with his girlfriend — not because he isn't entitled to it, but because an administrative tribunal ruled the vehicle isn't worth anything.

After splitting from his partner, Shatara Crowe, in May 2021, Joshua Andrews applied to B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) to have her pay him his portion of the $5,400 the couple paid for a 2007 Honda Civic, which they bought together in October 2020.

The CRT is an administrative body that is part of the public justice system. It typically makes decisions in small claims disputes, strata property disputes and motor vehicle claims up to $50,000.

The case shows how complicated it can be to divide possessions shared in a relationship without detailed records and agreements.

The B.C. Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the division of family property under the Family Law Act, but the couple did not qualify as they lived together for 18 months and were not married.

The vehicle was registered under Crowe's name, according to the tribunal, and despite sharing the car and the costs to run it, she kept the vehicle following the break-up.

The tribunal considered submissions that the couple had a verbal agreement that if they broke up, Crowe would keep the vehicle. However the tribunal could not confirm whether such an agreement was in place.

The tribunal found that Andrews was entitled to reimbursement for his share of the car's value, but not the $2,952 it said he paid, only half its resale value.

Need $8,000 in repairs

Crowe provided an assessment of the vehicle from a Vancouver Honda dealership, which shows the car needs $8,000 in repairs and is appraised at $0.

The tribunal also said Andrews had not provided enough evidence to show what the vehicle could fetch in a private sale.

"So, the only evidence of the car's value is Vancouver Honda's $0 appraisal," wrote tribunal member Leah Volkers.

The ruling from April 1 also dealt with Andrews' claim that Crowe owed him money he paid in annual insurance premiums for the vehicle. In total he was seeking $3,487 for his portion of the car's value and his portion of what he paid for the yearly insurance premium from the date they separated.

Again the tribunal said that Andrews did not provide enough evidence to show that he had transferred Crowe money specifically for the car's annual insurance.

What about the rent, hydro and Wi-Fi?

She provided documents that showed she paid the car's $2,175 annual insurance premium in February 2021.

In Crowe's response to the dispute she said Andrews owed her money for rent, hydro and Wi-Fi payments she made during and after their relationship, but the tribunal wrote that she did not file a counterclaim for these amounts.

Volkers dismissed Andrews' fee for the dispute, which can run between $125 and $200, because he was unsuccessful in his claim. Crowe did not pay any CRT fees or claim any dispute-related expenses.