Aitken v. Traviss, 2020 BCPC 134

Citation: Aitken v. Traviss 2020 BCPC 134 Date: 20200525 File No: 1955765 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: TARAH AITKEN CLAIMANT AND: CLINTON ALEXANDER TRAVISS DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C. MALFAIR Appearing on her own behalf: T. Aitken Appearing on his own behalf: C. Traviss Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 18, 2020 Date of Judgment: May 25, 2020 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on July 15, 2020.

The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. [ 1 ] This is a claim and counterclaim arising from the sale of a mobile home in Prince George, BC. The claimant vendor seeks the costs of removing the structure from her property while the purchaser defendant claims a refund of the purchase monies paid in addition to the costs of demolishing and removing the mobile. [ 2 ] The claimant and her former spouse, Derek Bailey, purchased a rural property which included an older mobile home manufactured in 1979. They separated in 2016 and Ms.

Aitken is now the sole owner of the real property. As the purchase of the property was financed by a mortgage through Farm Credit, the claimant had to de-register the mobile home as a term of financing. The

claimant understood from her lawyer at the time of the transaction that it was not difficult to re-register the mobile home should that become necessary. [ 3 ] The claimant and Mr. Bailey offered the mobile home for sale on Kijiji for $25,000. The advertisement provided the year and dimensions of the mobile home as well as the stipulation that the buyer would have to remove the mobile from the property.

The email exchanges show the Kijiji ad was for “mobile home to be moved.” [ 4 ] Moving a mobile home is a costly and, depending on the condition of the home, a potentially difficult undertaking. [ 5 ] In December 2015, Mr. Traviss responded to the advertisement. He told the sellers he had a property in the area and intended to put the mobile home there. He viewed the mobile home with his girlfriend and the parties agreed to a purchase price of $17,000. At the time Mr. Traviss was told a new roof had been installed on the unit years before.

He provided the sellers with a bank draft for $17,000 on December 30, 2015. Nothing was reduced to writing and no documents were exchanged at that time. [ 6 ] I accept Ms. Aitken’s evidence that at the time of negotiations she told Mr. Traviss the mobile home was currently de- registered due to the financing conditions of the lender for the real property. Mr. Traviss told Ms. Aitken he was not worried about it and said they would figure it out when the time came. [ 7 ] Mr.

Traviss admits at the time of sale he was not aware there was a mobile home registry and did not investigate what was involved in purchasing a mobile home. He says he knew you needed a “VIN” sticker like buying a trailer. [ 8 ] Mr. Traviss told the sellers he lived in Vancouver and he would touch base in the spring to discuss moving the mobile home and anything else. The parties exchanged numbers. [ 9 ] Mr. Traviss says that he started talking to a mover, “Len,” in February 2016, about moving the mobile home. Len advised Mr.

Traviss would need to have the mobile home registered in his name in order to get a transport permit. Mr. Traviss says he then reached out to Derek Bailey after learning about the registration requirements. Ms. Aitken says she and Mr. Bailey did not have any communication with Mr. Traviss after December 2015 until June 2016, as Mr. Traviss was hard to get hold of. She says they did not speak again until Mr. Traviss showed up at her property in June 2016. [ 10 ] Mr. Traviss did not call Mr.

Bailey as a witness and did not adduce any records of the alleged communications between them between December 2015 and June 2016. Mr. Traviss admitted in cross examination that between December 2015 and July 2016, Ms. Aitken and her spouse were not holding up registration of the mobile and in fact were being “helpful.” [ 11 ] I find that after providing the bank draft in December 2015, Mr. Traviss had no further communications with sellers about completing the transfer of the mobile until he showed up at Ms. Aitken’s property in June 2016 seeking to finalize the sale. [ 12 ] Upon meeting with Mr. Traviss, Ms.

Aitken immediately contacted her lawyer on June 8, 2016, explaining she had sold the mobile home and needed to transfer registration to the new owner so it could be moved. She provided all requisite information requested by her lawyer on that date and the sellers paid $469.93 to re-register the home on June 22, 2016. Ms. Aitken learned in the course of that transaction that Farm Credit had taken a security interest in the mobile home, so she obtained a no-interest letter from Farm Credit relinquishing any security interest. The mobile home was re-registered in her and Mr. Bailey’s name on July 26, 2016.

Because the mobile home had a valid CSA sticker, no re-inspection was required. [ 13 ] The parties initially believed the mobile home would be re-registered in Mr. Traviss’ name and did not appreciate that the mobile home had to first be re-registered to the sellers before it could be transferred to Mr. Traviss. Mr. Traviss says he learned from his Notary shortly after re-registration that the mobile was re-registered in the sellers’ names, not his. He advised Mr. Bailey, who said the sellers would cooperate as necessary to effect the transfer. [ 14 ] Mr.

Traviss took no further steps to complete the transfer for another year. Mr. Traviss could not explain the reason for that delay. [ 15 ] In order to register the mobile in his name, the sellers and Mr. Traviss needed to sign a Bill of Sale, following which Mr. Traviss needed to submit a Notice to Transfer or Change Ownership as provided under s. 7 of the Manufactured Home Act . These documents are customarily prepared by the purchaser. Mr. Traviss provided no explanation for failing to present the sellers with the Bill of Sale in July or August 2016, when the mobile home was re-registered to the sellers.

At no time did he seek to cancel or vitiate the sale. [ 16 ] On August 10, 2017, Mr. Traviss attended Ms. Aitken’s residence and asked her to sign a Bill of Sale so the transfer of the mobile home to his name could be completed. She signed the Bill of Sale, as did Mr. Bailey. The mobile was registered in Mr. Traviss’ name on August 23, 2017. Ms. Aitken raised the issue of moving the mobile home with Mr. Traviss, however, no steps were taken at that time to move the trailer. Mr. Traviss complained he had contacted 20 movers but “no luck yet” on moving it. [ 17 ] On September 13, 2017, Mr. Traviss texted Ms.

Aitken that he had found a mover and expected the mover to come in the next 30 days. A transport permit to move the trailer was issued to Mr. Traviss on October 6, 2017. [ 18 ] Before a mobile home can be moved certain preparatory steps need to be taken. It must be disconnected from utilities, the skirting needs to be removed as does any fixed addition. Mr. Traviss arranged for these preparatory measures to be undertaken on October 7, 2017. These preparatory measures, which include removing sources of heat and a door, made the mobile home more vulnerable to the elements. Mr.

Traviss also peeled some tin from the siding. [ 19 ] On October 25, 2017, Mr. Traviss arranged for a moving company, Precision Transport, to come and provide a quote for the cost of moving the home. Ms. Aitken took a day off work to assist the movers. The movers did not attend at the last minute and rescheduled for October 28, 2017.

[ 20 ] On October 28, 2017, Mr. Traviss texted Ms. Aitken that they could not complete the move at that time because the installed roof made the unit overheight. Traver Greenwood, a witness for Ms. Aitken, interacted with Precision Transport and Mr. Traviss on the property during that time. I accept his evidence that Precision said they could move the mobile home the next day, but there would be costs associated with removing the roof and shoring up the structure with plywood to make it moveable. Mr. Traviss declined to follow through with the move because he thought Precision’s quote was too high. [ 21 ] Mr.

Traviss took no further steps towards moving the trailer until May 2018. [ 22 ] On April 29, 2018, Mr. Traviss texted Ms. Aitken that another mover, “Len” would be moving the trailer. She responded to his requests for the dimensions of the trailer. Len came to assess the mobile home for moving in May 2018. At that point the mobile home had sat through the winter with no door, skirting or heat, and patches of peeled siding. Len asked Ms. Aitken to de-limb some trees to aid the move to which Ms. Aitken agreed. Mr.

Traviss said Len was charging $9,000 and would be “up there soon” to help move the mobile home. [ 23 ] Text messages between Len and Ms. Aitken show she was accommodating in facilitating his requests to access the property and mobile home and de-limb trees as necessary. Mr. Traviss did not proceed with Len to move the mobile home. I accept Ms. Aitken’s evidence that he said he felt the $9,000 moving cost was too high. [ 24 ] On July 19, 2018, Mr. Traviss texted Ms. Aitken that he had another mover, Terry, who would be coming in a few days to move the mobile home. Again, Ms.

Aitken was accommodating in requests to attend her property on multiple different days at the last minute to prepare the mobile home to move. Another transport permit to move the trailer was issued to Mr. Traviss on July 20, 2018. On July 21, 2018, Mr. Traviss advised he was arranging for another mover to come out to the Claimant’s property, but the mover and Mr. Traviss did not show up to pursue that. [ 25 ] On July 24, 2018, Mr. Traviss said Terry would be out at 9:00 a.m. on the following Saturday to move the home. The mover did not attend. Mr.

Traviss said he “cancelled” this mover for “playing games.” [ 26 ] On August 8, 2017, Mr. Traviss told Ms. Aitken his mover would be moving the mobile “tomorrow” at 9:00 a.m. On August 9, 2017, he texted Ms. Aitken that the move was a “no go” because there was “too much rot” and the mobile needed a full renovation where it sat before it could be moved. Ms. Aitken agreed to allow Mr. Traviss’ contractors to access her property to carry out those renovations between August 18-29, even though she was reticent because she was going to be away on vacation. [ 27 ] The mobile was still not moved. Mr.

Traviss says he came out with his mover, “Murray,” who advised it would cost $10,000 to move but cautioned the mobile could fall apart when they attempted to lift it. Mr. Traviss subsequently purchased a new mobile home from Murray. [ 28 ] On September 12, 2017, Ms. Aitken texted Mr. Traviss asking if he would be securing the mobile home before winter because she did not think it would be salvageable if it was left another winter with no skirting, door and siding hanging off with exposed water lines underneath. She proposed the home could be boarded up in a day or two. Mr.

Traviss said he would get back to her but did not. He had no further communications with Ms. Aitken until she filed this claim. [ 29 ] Frustrated the mobile home was deteriorating and not getting moved, Ms. Aitken filed this claim on April 18, 2019, seeking the costs of removing the structure. Upon serving Mr. Traviss he said he did not want to go to Court and attended within a few days to prepare the mobile home for moving. Mr. Traviss and his mover pulled the tin off the roof as well as an entire anterior wall in an attempt to install a towing hitch. Ms.

Aitken says she was then told the structure could not be moved and was now no longer salvageable. Mr. Traviss took the hot water heater and left. [ 30 ] Photos of the mobile home show at the time of sale it was intact. After July 2017, the mobile home was partly dismantled and had a large opening in the wall where the addition had been removed, leaving the inside of the home exposed to the elements. I accept the Claimant’s evidence that after July 2017, when the skirting and door were removed the mobile home started to quickly deteriorate. Ms.

Aitken alleges that by removing the skirting, water lines running under the structure to her livestock froze and backed up to her house. [ 31 ] Photos of the mobile home taken in November 2017, show an exposed hole in the side of the unit where it was separated from an addition and left unsecured. Snow is gathering around the opening. Photos of the mobile home taken in 2019 show the structure to be in shambles with an entire wall missing and no roof. Large pieces of tin are peeled from the sides. It is reduced to waste. [ 32 ] A BC Assessment search reveals that Mr.

Traviss has registered the mobile home, which is still on Ms. Aitken’s property, as being the mobile home which is currently on his property. Mr. Traviss purchased this other mobile home from “Murray” and it does not appear in the assessment records. Mr. Traviss says it is because of some kind of mistake. [ 33 ] Ms. Aitken seeks $12,000 in costs to have the dilapidated structure removed from her property. It is now a hazard at risk of falling over or collapsing. Mr.

Traviss seeks a refund of the $17,000 purchase price on the basis that the sale was “illegal” due to the mobile home not being registered, and the fact that Farm Credit had a security interest in the mobile home at the time of sale. He also complains the mobile home was rotten at the time of purchase. Mr. Traviss also seeks $12,000 in costs to demolish and remove the structure. Was the sale of the Mobile Home Illegal? [ 34 ] S. 18 of the Manufactured Home Act provides: Sale or transport of unregistered manufactured home prohibited 18

(1) A person must not import into British Columbia, sell, offer for sale or move a manufactured home unless the ownership of the

manufactured home is registered under this Act.

(2) This

section does not apply to a manufactured home that (

a) is owned by the government, a Crown corporation or agency or by a municipality and is occupied by or for the purposes of the government, the Crown corporation or agency or the municipality, or (

b) is exempted from this

section by regulation or by the registrar. [ 35 ] Section 5(1) of the Regulation provides an exemption for mobile homes purchased in conjunction with the land they sit on. It states: 5

(1) For the purposes of

section 21 of the Act, the registrar may exempt a manufactured home from the operation of the Act or any provision of it if (

a) the manufactured home is located on and intended to be attached to land, each lessor-owner or other secured party with a security interest in the manufactured home who registered a financing statement in the personal property registry under the Personal Property Security Act using the registration number assigned under the Act consents to the exemption application and (

i) at least one registered owner of the manufactured home is registered in the land title office as an owner of the fee simple interest in the land, or (ii) at least one registered owner of the manufactured home is registered in the land title office as a tenant pursuant to a lease for a term of not less than 3 years, [ 36 ] The onus is on Mr. Traviss, who seeks to resile from the purchase agreement, to show the sale was “illegal” as he claims. He did not seek production of any records from Ms. Aitken concerning the de-registration of the mobile home. In all of the circumstances as described by Ms.

Aitken, I find it likely that at the time of purchase the mobile home was “deregistered,” as she describes it, by seeking a registration exemption under s. 5(1) of the Regulations on the basis that the registered owner of the mobile was also registered owner of the real property on which it sat. As such, it was not “illegal” to offer the de-registered mobile home for sale as contemplated in s. 18 of the Act . The registration requirement only became necessary once the parties intended to transfer ownership and move the mobile, as s. 5 of the Regulations would no longer apply. [ 37 ] Mr.

Traviss admitted in cross-examination that the new mobile home he purchased from “Murray” is also not registered, as it is affixed to his land. [ 38 ] Even if the sale was unable to complete in December 2015 due to the registration status of the mobile home, there was still an enforceable agreement for sale. When Mr. Traviss provided the bank draft there were discussions about formally transferring ownership and the parties agreed that would be dealt with in the spring. In transactions of this nature it is customary for the purchaser to prepare and present transfer documents to the seller. Mr.

Aitken knew the mobile was de-registered when he presented the bank draft. He made no attempts to present any transfer or registration documents at the time of payment. Rather, he provided payment on the basis that Ms. Aitken would take the mobile home off the market and execute any documents he later presented to her as necessary to complete transfer and registration.

In that regard, the bank draft was akin to a 100% deposit to secure the purchaser’s intention to complete the sale at a later date. [ 39 ] As of July 26, 2016, the mobile home was registered and there was no legal impediment to sale under s. 18 of the Act , if in fact no s. 5(1) exemption applied. If the agreement for sale was not valid on December 30, 2015, when payment was made, then it was valid by July 26, 2016, once the mobile was registered and an offer for sale was no longer statute barred.

Transfer of ownership under the Manufactured Home Act was perfected upon the parties executing the transfer and Bill of Sale on August 10, 2017. [ 40 ] Since December 2015, Mr. Traviss conducted himself in a manner consistent with an assertion of ownership of the mobile. Ms. Aitken correspondingly acted in a manner consistent with that transfer of ownership by re-registering the mobile, executing transfer related documents presented to her, and allowing Mr. Traviss to strip and alter the mobile home for the purpose of moving it. [ 41 ] Mr. Traviss complains it took 20 months to transfer the mobile to him.

I find the sellers acted promptly in taking all necessary steps to transfer ownership of the mobile home. Upon providing payment, Mr. Traviss said he would deal with the transfer “in the spring” then did not communicate with the sellers until the summer. At his request the sellers quickly arranged for re-registration of the mobile home. As the purchaser it was Mr. Traviss’ responsibility to prepare or present the transfer and Bill of Sale documents required under the Act . He did not present the Bill of Sale until August 2017, and the sellers signed it immediately.

I find any delays in completing of transfer of ownership were attributable to Mr. Traviss. [ 42 ] Mr. Traviss further argues he would not have purchased the mobile home if he knew it “had no VIN number.” He adduced no evidence that there is such a thing as a VIN number for an older mobile home and pointed to nothing in the Manufactured Home Act necessitating a “VIN” number. What is required is a CSA sticker and registration number. The mobile home had a valid CSA sticker and had a valid registration number upon re-registration in July 2016.

I find no merit in this submission. [ 43 ] I find there was a valid and enforceable agreement for the purchase and sale of the mobile home and Mr. Traviss is not entitled to a return of the purchase price on the grounds of illegality or delay. “Illegality” of Sale Due to Mortgage Registration [ 44 ] Mr. Traviss alleges the sale of the mobile home was illegal because Ms. Aitken “did not own it” by virtue of Farm Credit having registered a security interest in the home in December 2015. Ms.

Aitken admits she was not aware Farm Credit had a security interest in the mobile until she went to re-register it in the summer of 2016. She quickly obtained a no interest letter from Farm Credit on

June 28, 2016, releasing any interest in the mobile. [ 45 ] Mr. Traviss says because of the security interest the mobile home did not “belong” to Ms. Aitken and she could not sell something that was not hers. Mr. Traviss misconstrues the nature of a security interest, which is a charge on property to secure repayment of a debt. It does not detract from ownership. Ms. Aitken was the owner of the real property on which the mobile home sat and she was the owner of that mobile home, such that she was able to register the home in her name with the Manufactured Home Registry in July 2016. [ 46 ] I find no merit to Mr.

Traviss’ argument that the security interest in the mobile nullified the sale. Mr. Traviss had no knowledge of this security interest until documents were exchanged in this proceeding. There was no discussion of the security interest or clarity of title to the mobile at the time of sale. There is no evidence the sellers made representations about the absence of any security interests in the mobile which Mr. Traviss relied on to his detriment. When the parties took initial steps towards perfecting the sale in July 2016, Farm Credit issued a no interest letter relinquishing any security interest in the mobile home.

It was transferred to Mr. Traviss free and clear of any claim by Farm Credit. The security interest did not impact the sale in anyway and Mr. Traviss suffered no prejudice from the existence of this security interest. Refund for State of the Mobile Home [ 47 ] Mr. Traviss seeks a refund of the purchase price on the basis that when he went to move the trailer he learned it was full of rot and unsafe to move or live in. [ 48 ] The mobile home was sold unconditionally on an “as is” basis. Mr. Traviss was given unrestricted access to inspect the mobile at the time of purchase.

He chose not to engage a professional inspector. Mr. Traviss does not allege any false representations made by Ms. Aitken or her former partner about the condition of the mobile which he relied upon to his detriment in purchasing the mobile home. I find there was no misrepresentation or breach of the sale agreement in respect of the condition of the trailer. [ 49 ] Further, Mr. Traviss failed to meet the evidentiary burden upon him to show the trailer was in poor condition at the time of purchase. Photos taken of the mobile home around the time of sale show it to be an intact structure with no apparent defects.

I accept the evidence of the Claimant’s witness, Traver Greenwood, that he was familiar with the trailer in 2015 and 2016 and it was “nice.” [ 50 ] Mr. Traviss removed protective structures on the mobile, such as the door, siding, and skirting in order to move it. He then left it exposed to the elements in the winter for many months. This could readily explain the poor condition of the trailer by 2019. The onus is on Mr. Traviss to prove causation, that is, that the rot in the trailer pre-existed the purchase and was not due to the trailer being stripped and exposed for lengthy periods of time.

He has not adduced any such evidence. His counterclaim in this regard fails. Costs of Removal [ 51 ] Both Ms. Aitken and Mr. Traviss claim the costs of removing the mobile home from Ms. Aitken’s property. Ms. Aitken has adduced a quote from Bill Cash Enterprises in the amount of $10,500 to remove and dispose of the mobile home, plus $525 GST. Ms. Aitken says this quote does not include tipping fees. She provided no evidence of the estimated amount of those fees, however, Mr. Traviss agrees the total cost of removal is around $12,000. [ 52 ] Ms. Aitken says the real reason Mr.

Traviss took no steps to move the mobile home was because it was too expensive. She submits he did not bother to investigate the cost of moving the home before he purchased it, and once he discovered that cost he was discouraged from moving it. [ 53 ] Mr. Traviss says the cost of moving was not an issue. His issue was due to the poor condition of the trailer he could not get any guarantees from the movers that it would be moved safely, or that they would indemnify against any damage.

He complains the trailer was rotten, the roof was put on incorrectly, and that the trailer was in a highly defective state incapable of being safely moved. In this regard I understand Mr. Traviss to be alleging that the agreement for him to move the mobile was frustrated because it was not possible to effect a move. [ 54 ] Mr. Traviss also claims Mr. Bailey represented he could move the mobile home for Mr. Traviss with a tractor. Mr. Traviss did not call Mr. Bailey as a witness to corroborate this claim. [ 55 ] Mr. Traviss adduced emails between himself and Mr. Bailey exchanged prior to the sale in November 2015.

Mr. Traviss said his property (where the mobile would be moved to) was “on the same block as the store.” Mr. Bailey said “ya we could damn near move it ourselves.” Mr. Traviss wrote “I be in pg middle dec call u for sure ya could move it I own tow truck.” Mr. Bailey wrote “I got a dozer and couple bug tractors so I’m sure we could figure it out.” [ 56 ] I find that Mr. Bailey’s communications were consistent with a representation that he was willing to help Mr. Traviss move the mobile home, not assume the cost, risk, or responsibility of moving the home. There is no evidence that Mr.

Bailey held himself out as a moving expert such that Mr. Traviss could reasonably rely on the representation “we could damn near move it ourselves.” The reality is neither Mr. Traviss nor Mr. Bailey ever attempted to move the mobile home themselves with a tow truck and tractors. When Mr. Traviss did take steps to move the home, he contacted professional mobile home movers. Mr. Traviss admitted in cross examination he knew his vehicle and Mr. Bailey’s equipment were incapable of hoisting the mobile home in the air and that a special trailer would be needed to move it to Mr.

Traviss’ property. [ 57 ] I find that when he purchased the trailer Mr. Traviss knew he would have to bear the costs and risks of moving it. The advertisement offering the mobile home for sale stated it would have to be moved. Further, Mr. Traviss made repeated attempts to have professional movers assess the mobile and took alteration steps recommended by them to prepare the home for moving. That conduct is inconsistent with a belief that Ms. Aitken’s former partner was going to move the home with his tractor for free. [ 58 ] It was obvious the mobile home was going to have to be moved. The onus was on Mr.

Traviss to inform himself about the costs

and steps involved in moving the mobile home before purchasing it. He did not seek advice from any movers prior to purchase as to price or moving risks. The sellers made no representations to Mr. Traviss about the costs or risks of moving. The sellers told Mr. Traviss about the new roof but he took no steps to ensure the roof would not be an impediment to moving. Mr. Traviss’ own failures to inform himself about this important and necessary component of purchasing the mobile home does not give rise to a claim against Ms. Aitken. Once the mobile was registered in Mr.

Traviss’ name in 2017, it was not even possible for Ms. Aitken to move it as she would not have been eligible for a transport permit. [ 59 ] Upon presenting the sellers with a bank draft, Ms. Aitken was no longer at liberty to sell the mobile home to someone else who may have moved the mobile home right away. It was part of the agreement between the parties that Mr. Traviss would move the mobile home from the property. Given the amount of cost involved in moving, this was a material aspect of the agreement. Ms.

Aitken showed great patience in allowing the mobile home to continue to sit on her property long after it was sold, and allowing Mr. Traviss to repeatedly attend her property to assess or alter the mobile home for that purpose. Ms. Aitken was accommodating and helpful in trying to facilitate the move, leaving work and other commitments to meet movers, and delimbing trees on her property as requested. [ 60 ] I find it was a term of the verbal contract between the parties that Mr. Traviss would move the mobile home in a reasonable time. Mr.

Traviss acted in a fashion consistent with that agreement by responding to Ms. Aitken’s requests to remove the trailer by sending out movers to assess or prepare the mobile home. Mr. Traviss breached that agreement by failing to remove the mobile home from her property as agreed. [ 61 ] The agreement between the parties for Mr. Traviss to remove the mobile home from Ms. Aitken’s property was not frustrated by the condition of the structure. The evidence shows Mr. Traviss was provided quotes by movers who said they could move the home.

The fact they would not “guarantee” absence of damage during the move does not mean the mobile was incapable of being moved. The sale agreement between the parties was not conditional on Mr. Traviss being able to obtain an indemnity against damage from a mobile home mover. I accept Mr. Greenwood’s evidence that he was present when some of the movers came out to view the mobile and every mover he spoke to said the mobile was capable of being moved, it was just a matter of cost. [ 62 ] Mr. Traviss breached his agreement by failing to remove the mobile home from Ms. Aitken’s property.

It was his responsibility and he became the registered owner of the mobile home in August 2017. I find that Mr. Traviss became discouraged from moving the home in August 2017 after his conversations with the mover “Murray,” and opted instead to abandon the trailer and purchase a new one through Murray. [ 63 ] The mobile home is now no longer capable of being moved and is unsalvageable. It is a hazard and eyesore on Ms. Aitken’s property and is only fit for demolition and disposal. Ms. Aitken is entitled to those costs. [ 64 ] While Mr.

Traviss complains he is now deprived of the mobile home itself in addition to having to pay costs to remove it, that it is not the fault of Ms. Aitken or the sellers. Mr. Traviss blindly purchased the mobile without inquiring into the costs and risks associated with moving it. He exposed the mobile to the elements with preparatory work then failed to follow through with any of the numerous movers he contacted for moving quotes. It would be unfair to attribute any of these costs to Ms. Aitken who could have sold the mobile home to someone else and had it removed from her property years ago. [ 65 ] I find Ms.

Aitken is entitled to the costs of removing the mobile home in the amount of $12,000. Conclusion [ 66 ] Ms. Aitken’s claim in the amount of $12,000 is allowed, plus filing fees of $156 and service fees of $20. She is entitled to judgement in the total amount of $12,176 . Ms. Aitken is entitled to pre-judgement interest on that amount from April 18, 2019. [ 67 ] Mr. Traviss’ counterclaim is dismissed. ______________________________ The Honourable Judge C.

Malfair Province of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - Released July 15, 2020 In the Reasons for Judgment dated May 25, 2020, the following changes have been made: [1] In paragraph [19] it states: Ms. Aitken took a day of work to assist the movers. It should read: Ms. Aitken took a day off work to assist the movers. [2] In paragraph [26] it states: Ms. Aitken agreed to allow Mr. Traviss’ contractors to access her property to carry to those renovations between August 18-29, even though she was reticent because she was going to be away on vacation. It should read: Ms. Aitken agreed to allow Mr.

Traviss’ contractors to access her property to carry out those renovations between August 18-29, even though she was reticent because she was going to be away on vacation. [3] In paragraph [28] it states: On September 12, 2017, Ms. Aitken texted Mr. Taviss asking if he would be securing the mobile home before winter because she did not think it would be salvageable if it was left another winter with no skirting, door and siding

hanging off with exposed water lines underneath. It should read: On September 12, 2017, Ms. Aitken texted Mr. Traviss asking if he would be securing the mobile home before winter because she did not think it would be salvageable if it was left another winter with no skirting, door and siding hanging off with exposed water lines underneath. ______________________________ The Honourable Judge C. Malfair Province of British Columbia