B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a man to compensate his ex-girlfriend for a chameleon she claimed they bought for her children.
In a Sept. 12 decision, tribunal member Nav Shukla said A.B. and D.C. were in a relationship from May 2022 to December 2022 and living together.
A.B. said that months after the relationship ended, D.C. took items that belonged to her and her children, including the chameleon.
She sought orders that D.C. return the chameleon along with its enclosure and supplies and that he pay her $4,000 for the replacement cost of other items he took from her home. Those included smart lightbulbs, a sectional sofa, a 40- to 50-inch TV, an 80-inch TV, one tall dresser, one long dresser, a television stand, a surround sound system, a glass flat-top barbecue, two garage shelves, and an Xbox series X with games and a pass.
A.B. also asked for $1,000 for alleged damages to her home, funds she said he had agreed to pay.
The ruling noted D.C. sold the chameleon in a private sale on July 6, 2023.
A.B. did not deny he had bought the lizard for her 10-year-old child.
“I find there is very little other evidence to support a finding that [D.C.] had an ownership interest in the chameleon,” Shukla said in ordering compensation be paid.
“[A.B.] does not dispute that [D.C.] paid for these items but says that he gifted them to her and her children when he left in December 2022,” Shukla said.
The tribunal found A.B. did not dispute the items belonging to D.C. but provided no proof of the items being gifts and dismissed that part of the claim.
Shukla did find D.C. had taken a game A.B. had bought when he took the Xbox and ordered him to pay for it.
D.C. said he never agreed to pay A.B. $1,000 for alleged damage to the home. Shukla found there was no binding agreement for D.C. to pay A.B. a specific amount for the damage. Shukla further said photos showed normal wear and tear on the residence.
“Given the nature of the damage, I find it is very possible that her landlord will not deduct any amounts from her damage deposit,” Shukla said.
In a separate claim, D.C. asserted A.B. still has items that belong to him and that she still owes him for items he paid for that she purchased for her children.
He sought orders that A.B. return some of the items and pay half of the fair market value of other items. He also sought an order A.B. pay him $726.06 for the children’s items he paid for.
He asked that A.B. return his deep freezer, a television stand and a knife set. Receipts in evidence showed that D.C. purchased the deep freezer and television stand well before he moved into A.B.’s home, which A.B. did not dispute.
“However, [A.B.] says she has kept these items because [D.C.] gifted them to her and her children,” the tribunal member wrote.
Still, Shukla found there was no evidence they were gifts.
“I order [A.B.] to return the freezer and television stand to [D.C.].”
The tribunal said D.C. failed to prove the knife set belonged to him and allowed A.B. to keep it.
He also sought compensation for a gazebo, SodaStream, and Xbox hard drives which “[A.B.] has undisputedly kept.”
Shukla awarded him 50 per cent of the value of the items.
D.C. further said he paid $726 for sporting equipment and Apple AirPods for A.B.’s child, items for which she failed to repay him. Again, A.B. claimed they were gifts but Shukla found no proof of that and ordered A.B. to pay for those items.
In total, A.B. was ordered to pay $1,023.
