Some people just wonsa国际传媒檛 take responsibility for their mistakes.

In this case itsa国际传媒檚 the owner of a sign company in Victoria that screwed up and then sued someone over it.

I was perusing through the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decisions and found a head-scratching case from 2022. The tribunal handles a lot of small claims in disputes between people or businesses sa国际传媒� from a few hundred to several thousand dollars - and some of the decisions are simply wild in the rancor displayed between parties.

The Victoria dispute started after someone hired a local company to make a lawn sign saying sa国际传媒淗appy 80th birthdaysa国际传媒� for a local senior.

Sounds simple enough, right?

Wrong.

The problem started after the company erected the sign on the wrong lawn sa国际传媒� a home adjacent to the actual person celebrating the birthday.

Now if it was me, Isa国际传媒檇 take the L and just move on from there, but this Victoria company didnsa国际传媒檛 want to do that.

The company claims that the Victoria resident who incorrectly ended up with the sign on her lawn removed it and bagged it up, but damaged it in the process. The company accused the resident of doing so deliberately sa国际传媒� saying the homeowner sa国际传媒渞ipped upsa国际传媒� the large sign.

The company was seeking $2,850 for the damage to the sign and the loss from having to refund the person who hired the company in the first place.

The resident who was being sued ended up countersuing for $3,000, claiming sa国际传媒渆motional distress and mental anxietysa国际传媒� due to the incident.

Sigh.

Double sigh.

Reading this entire tribunal decision was exhausting. It smells like the company was mad it had to refund the original customer and decided to punish an innocent homeowner who didnsa国际传媒檛 ask for a ginormous sign left on her lawn.

The tribunal adjudicator said they had to decide if the sign was truly damaged, if the homeowner is responsible for paying for that damage and if the homeowner truly suffered sa国际传媒渆motional distress.sa国际传媒� (They also claimed the company was trespassing on her property, but the decision says this was an unreasonable claim.)

On the first point, the decision says the homeowner sa国际传媒渄id not carelessly or recklessly sa国际传媒榮hovesa国际传媒� the signs into a garbage bag.sa国际传媒�

In fact, the decision says the sign appears to have been sa国际传媒渢idily foldedsa国际传媒� although it was technically damaged in the process.

The companysa国际传媒檚 claim was then dismissed and I needed a break at this point to lower my blood pressure at the childishness of the whole thing.

As for the homeownersa国际传媒檚 sa国际传媒渆motional distresssa国际传媒� claim, the decision says that while she did claim having had sa国际传媒渘ightmaressa国际传媒� from the incident sa国际传媒� supposedly requiring medication - there was no compelling evidence that necessitated financial damages.

So both claims were dismissed and that feels reasonable. Itsa国际传媒檚 incredible that people cansa国际传媒檛 find a way to resolve these situations without ending up in court.

Someone made a mistake and then it blows up into this?

Hopefully those involved have learned from the experience.

READ MORE:

Chris Campbell is an editor for Black Press. You can follow him on Twitter @shinebox44.

Do you have a story tip? Email: chris.campbell@blackpress.ca.

Follow us on and and like us on