Debra and Devan started living together at Devan’s house in March 2021. Their arrangement was that Debra would pay for groceries and other expenses in lieu of rent. In June 2021, Devan’s children moved in with them. The arrangement between Debra and Devan was modified: Devan would pay the expenses, and Debra would take time off work to care for the children.
This arrangement lasted for one month: Debra and Devan broke up in July 2021. Debra asked for reimbursement for expenses that she paid for which totalled about $3,500 (groceries, supplies for Devan’s Airbnb business, beer, cigarettes and a movie rental).
Devan paid Debra $1,000. Debra said that she was owed a further $2,500. In an alleged telephone discussion, Devan is said to have agreed to pay the further $2,500 in two installments. Vague text messages went back and forth, and in one, Devan said he needed more time to pay, and that he was not “trying to get out of anything.”
Debra successfully sued Devan in B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there was a valid and binding settlement agreement.
“A settlement agreement is a contract where parties to a dispute agree to a resolution. For a binding settlement agreement to exist, there must be an offer and acceptance of that offer. There must also be evidence that the parties agreed, without qualification, to the essential terms of the settlement.”
“A settlement agreement does not need to be signed or even written, to be enforceable. Parties can form a contract through their correspondence as long as it shows that they intended to be bound by clear terms.”
Debra also sought the return of a blender, mop and bucket. The court declined to order this, noting that the items were easily replaceable and that the parties now lived 5 hours apart. Debra was awarded, however, $50. The items were valued at $80, new. The court also ordered Devan to return to Debra some ashtrays. These were said to be a gift from a family member. The court ordered that they be returned to Debra, at Devan’s expense, “substantially in the same condition as they were in July 2021.”
The case, Peters v. Assman, 2022 BCCRT 925 (CanLII), is an unfortunate tale of love lost and hurt feelings. It is also a reminder of the power of a binding settlement agreement, and the formalities (or informalities) required to establish one.
Thank you for reading.
Paul Trudelle