Chohan Freight Forwarders Ltd. v. Maqbool, 2021 BCPC 86

Citation: Chohan Freight Forwarders Ltd. v. Maqbool 2021 BCPC 86 Date: 20210331 File No: 42384 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Civil Court BETWEEN: CHOHAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS LTD. CLAIMANT AND: MOHAMMED FAREED MAQBOOL DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Appearing for the Claimant: C. Hunter Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 8, 2021 Date of Judgment: March 31, 2021 [ 1 ] This is an application by Chohan Freight Forwarders Ltd. (“Chohan”) for default judgment against its employee, Mohammed Fareed Maqbool, a truck driver.

The claim arises from a delivery Mr. Maqbool was making for Chohan that required transit through Kamloops. In short, Mr. Maqbool had been cautioned twice by Carly Hunter of Chohan about the over-height load he was carrying and to avoid the underpass in Kamloops.

[ 2 ] Instead, Mr. Maqbool drove under the underpass causing damage to Chohan’s truck, the freight heading to Chohan’s customer, and the overpass. Chohan was also ticketed for the driving offence. The damages claimed by the Claimant are as follows:

a) Freight damage: $12,145.12

b) Cost to transport damaged load and re-deliver: $ 2,625.00

c) Chohan’s loss of revenue: $10,000.00 [ 3 ] The Claimant provided case law which indicates that an employee may, in some circumstances, be held liable for damages caused to an employer that are not classified as ordinary negligence. Based on the evidence presented by way of Ms. Hunter’s affidavit, I am satisfied that this is ordinary negligence. What sets this case apart from the others is that Mr.

Maqbool signed an employment agreement where he agreed that Chohan could deduct any outstanding or accumulated fees incurred by driver while “incumbent” with the company including, but not limited, to tolls, tickets and fines, freight or cargo claims, automobile claims, truck damage, or missing equipment. This certainly contemplates coverage for the damage to the freight. The claim made by Chohan is net of insurance coverage and is an appropriate amount. [ 4 ] Mr. Maqbool subsequently signed a letter prepared by Chohan where Mr.

Maqbool acknowledges liability for the violation ticket, the damages to the freight and any and all deductibles or damage repairs advanced by the City of Kamloops. There is a reference in that letter to amounts be net of ICBC approval but ICBC is not the insurance company which paid out the freight damage claim. It is unclear whether ICBC paid for any of these damages. [ 5 ] Of the remaining two claims, the cost to transport the damaged load and redeliver is not specifically outlined in either the employment contract or the repayment agreement subsequently signed by Mr. Maqbool.

The employment contract was not an exhaustive list but any amount claimed under that heading must be reasonably foreseeable as a claim for damages. I am satisfied that it was reasonably foreseeable any damage to the freight would result in these costs and I award judgment in the sum of $2,625 as claimed. [ 6 ] Similarly, the claim for loss of revenue is not factored into either the employment agreement or the repayment agreement. It too must be reasonably foreseeable to be recoverable by Chohan. I am not satisfied that this is reasonably foreseeable.

It is neither reasonable to expect an employee to compensate an employer for losing business as a result of a single accident, nor is it reasonably foreseeable that such damages would flow from a single accident. [ 7 ] This is particularly so since the customer of Chohan was compensated for lost freight. Ms. Hunter claims that the customer told her their orders were cancelled because of the accident saying “they believed that the accident showed that some of Chohan’s drivers were careless and did not follow proper routes and protocols”.

I should not think that such a contract cancellation based upon one accident of ordinary negligence would result in a cancellation of all contracts. Nor is it reasonably foreseeable that the customer would do this and nor is it reasonably contemplated by the terms of either the employment contract or the repayment contract that Mr. Maqbool would accept liability for these losses. I dismiss that claim. [ 8 ] I award the Claimant judgment against Mr.

Maqbool in the sum of $14,770.12, together with reasonable costs to be assessed by the Registrar and pre-judgment interest from April 28, 2019 at the Registrar’s rates of interest. [ 9 ] Chohan and Mr. Maqbool entered into an agreement that Mr. Maqbool would repay Chohan at a rate of $500 per pay period. I do not have evidence that Mr. Maqbool is still employed with Chohan or whether he is paid biweekly. I order that he pay the judgment at $1,000 per month, commencing April 1, 2021 and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter. Of course, Mr.

Maqbool may choose to pay the entire sum or make further payments in lump sums, and he is certainly entitled to do so. In addition, any part of this claim that Mr. Maqbool is indemnified for by insurance, that amount is due and payable to Chohan immediately. ___________________________ S.D. Frame Provincial Court Judge