Markovic v Romo, 2023 ABCJ 221

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: Markovic v Romo, 2023 ABCJ 221 Date: 20231024 Docket: 2202100023 Registry: Grande Prairie Between: Christopher Markovic Plaintiff - and - Trevor Romo Defendant Judgment of the Honourable Ju stice B.R. Hougestol Introduction [ 1 ] The Plaintiff and Defendant used to be friends and had some form of relationship around the acquisition, repair and use of a 1970 Mustang “tail drapper” airplane.

Both parties have experience with flying, buying and repair of planes. [ 2 ] The Defendant, in a series of events reminiscent of a “Wylie Coyote” cartoon, managed to cause significant damage to the plane. He exited the plane while the engine was running causing the plane to crash into a snowplough. The plane had no insurance for the damage. The Defendant accepts that he was at fault for the accident. [ 3 ] The crash coupled with the other familial squabbles, effectively ended the relationship.

The Plaintiff sues for the damage to the plane and ancillary costs. [ 4 ] I am required to determine what the relationship between the parties actually was and decide what damages might be. Facts [ 5 ] In 2018 the Plaintiff found an old disused plane. He arranged to acquire it and see it moved to his hangar in Beaverlodge, Alberta. The actual purchase price was only $1500.00 since the plane was partially dismantled and had not been used in years.

Additionally, it had to be accessed and moved, both with difficulties and considerable costs involved. [ 6 ] The Defendant had “tail drapper” experience and was going to share that experience with the Plaintiff. They worked together

on cleaning, repairing and re-building the plane. The Plaintiff minimizes the work done by the Defendant. The Plaintiff denies the Defendant paid $500.00 to put some costs into the plane. I am satisfied that the Defendant put considerable work into the project and did pay $500.00 plus the brakes and battery. The Defendant had full access to the project even while the Plaintiff was out of the country working. The Defendant was allowed to fly the plane when complete without any apparent fetters. According to the Plaintiff and Defendant the Defendant was to insure the plane.

Without an ownership interested I do not see how the Defendant could insure it. [ 7 ] The Defendant called the project a “partnership”. The Plaintiff tried to characterize the Defendant’s role as a conditional owner ie: he could use the plane in return for providing the flying experience and paying “collision/damage” insurance on the plane. The Plaintiff tries to characterize the Defendant as being in breach of this implied contract. [ 8 ] I am perfectly satisfied that the actions of both parties over a series of months supported strongly the role of the Defendant as a “partner” or “co-owner” of the plane.

I am perfectly satisfied that the parties originally intended this to be a 50/50 ownership arrangement. The two were putting more or less equal “sweat equity” into the plane. [ 9 ] Both parties would be responsible for 50% of the costs. According to the Exhibit 2 Appraisal, in April 2020 the Plaintiff appears in Transport Canada records as the sole owner. There is no evidence as to earlier registrations. There is no evidence how one even registers a plane with Transport Canada. The Defendant says that the Plaintiff “forged” something to achieve the registration.

Whatever happened, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff took matters into his own hands and scooped ownership of the plane. The relationship was over in any case. Both parties appear to have been fast and loose with the documentation generally surrounding the plane. Flight logs and maintenance logs were not well maintained by either party. [ 10 ] At the point at which the accident occurred the parties were co-owners (50/50) respecting the plane. In my view, the Plaintiff can only sue to recover his portion of the damage to the plane. Damages [ 11 ] The Plaintiff’s cost of repairs are in excess of $40,000.00.

If the cost of repairs exceeds the actual cash value of the plane at the time of the accident, then the Plaintiff is entitled to the lesser of the two amounts. [ 12 ] Here Exhibit 2 is the appraisal of the plane as at the accident date. I accept the $40,000.00 figure as accurate but will apply 10% abatement to that price to account for a somewhat dubious maintenance record and unknowns in actual usable time prior to a major engine overhaul. I therefore fix the plane’s value at $36,000.00, an amount less than the actual repair cost.

As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to that lesser sum. [ 13 ] Additionally, the wrecked plane had a salvage value which the Plaintiff had the benefit of. For some chattels there are recognized values attached to the “salvage valuations”. I have not been provided with any input for planes. I therefore will assign an arbitrary value of 10% to the wrecked plane. The Defendant is due credit for half of the 10% salvage value. [ 14 ] The Plaintiff claims for ancillary costs associated with long-term storage at the plane in Grande Prairie versus returning it to his own hangar.

I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to storage from the accident, February 2020 to April 2020 when he deemed the plane his alone. In that the time frame he could have made alternate arrangements for storage. This results in $75.00 x three months = $225.00. Settlement [ 15 ] The Defendant had argued that the Plaintiff had accepted his proposal of writing off the damages in return for the Defendant signing off on his share of the plane. There is no clear indication that the Plaintiff accepted this proposal. The Plaintiff was not obliged to do so.

In the result, I cannot say that there was such a settlement either expressly or by the Plaintiff’s conduct.

Summary [ 16 ] The Plaintiff is entitled to his 50% share of the plane’s value at the accident date, namely $18,000.00. The Plaintiff will have $1,800.00 deducted for salvage = $16,200.00. Additionally, he will have $225.00 for storage, for a total of $16,425.00. Heard on the 16 th day of October, 2023. Dated at the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta this 24 th day of October, 2023.

B.R. Hougestol A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Christopher Markovic Self-represented Trevor Romo Self-represented