: SCT Claim no. 484746 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOV A SCOTIA Citation: Hutchinson v. Worsley, 2019 NSSM 35 BETWEEN: DENINIS HUTCHINSON [...] -and-ANG ELA WORSLEY [...] REASONS FOR DECISION BEFORE Shelly A. Martin, Adjudicator Hearing held at Truro, Nova Scotia on April l, 2019 Decision rendered on July 10, 2019 APPEARANCES For the Claimant Self-represented. For the Defendant Self-represented. t,.' \.. CLAIMS ~r"' ' l\i 0 JUL 1 6 2019 . ~ COLCHES1E.~ CLAIMANT DEFENDANT
BY THE COURT: [I] Mr. Hutchinson has sued Ms. Worsley in hopes of recovering the cost of purchasing, registering and repairing a 2011 Ford Escape that he purchased for Ms. Worsley. The basis of his claim stems from a promise he claims Ms. Worsley made to repay him all expenses outlaid for the vehicle which totalled $4879.00. Ms. Worsley denies ever having made a promise to repay Mr. Hutchinson. [2] Mr. Hutchinson and Ms. Worsley state that they had previously been friends for about 20 years. They began dating in 2014 and did not live together. This situation continued for three years until Ms. Worsley ended the relationship and began seeing someone else in the fall of 2017. [3] Earlier that same year, Ms. Worsley's previous vehicle, another Ford Escape, began to experience some issues and she began considering a vehicle to replace it. While on a drive outside Truro, she saw a 2011 Ford Escape advertised for sale outside someone's home. She testified that the vehicle was in good shape and was a more recent model than the one she had been driving and when she saw Mr. Hutchinson the next day, she mentioned the vehicle to him. [4] Mr. Hutchinson testified initially that Ms. Worsley mentioned the vehicle to him and was "on me about it." In the first instance he testified that Ms. Worsley "wore me down" until he agreed to go look at it. Mr. Hutchinson's initial testimony and demeanor suggest he was a reluctant purchaser, persuaded by Ms. Worsley's demands. [5) Ms. Worsley provided a different version of the story. She stated that after mentioning the new vehicle to the Claimant, he arrived at her home a few days later, at which time they drove out to look at the vehicle together. That day, Mr. Hutchinson purchased the vehicle. Ms. Worsley produced a sales receipt and other documentation clearly showing her name on the sales receipt, registration and sales receipt. Ms. Worsley's testimony did acknowledge that Mr. Hutchinson provided money for the purchase and registration of the vehicle, but that she paid for the cost of insurance and for repairs on the vehicle which included new brakes callipers and rotors. She also paid for the inspection. [6] At first, Mr. Hutchinson testified that there was a verbal agreement at the time the vehicle was pl,lfchased between the parties. Upon further questioning, he could provide no detail about the content of the discussion or the timing, other than to say it was "probably about a week later" they had discussed that ••if she could pay me back some of the money, that would be great." [7] Ms. Hutchinson denied ever agreeing to reimburse Mr. Hutchinson for the money he contributed to the purchase of the vehicle. 2
. . [8] When I questioned Mr. Hutchinson a little more about any conversations that might have occurred on this point between he and Ms. Worsley, he faltered and testified that he had previously purchased a vehicle for her, but that there was no agreement to reimburse him in the instance of the first vehicle. He also admitted in July of2017 that he felt that "she needed a vehicle really bad and I just went out and bought it." Further, he testified that this was purchased "out of the goodness of my heart. At the time, we were boyfriend and girlfriend and I would do anything to make her happy. I thought about it and I thought about it, it looked good and I went and purchased it." [9] Mr. Hutchinson summed up my view of how this Claim came before me. "If I knew what was going to happen at the time I purchased it, I would not have done it. I was just trying to appease her and this is what happens." The end of the relationship a mere four months after Mr. Hutchinson purchased the vehicle for Ms. Worsley was the impetus for this Claim. Given the testimony of Mr. Hutchinson about his previous purchase of a vehicle for Ms. Worsley and his testimony about his feelings at the time of the purchase of the 2011 Ford Escape, it is safe to say this Claim would never have been filed, were they still together. I cannot find any evidence to suggest in this case that Ms. Worsley made a promise to repay Mr. Hutchinson. Although there were hurt feelings in the end, there certainly was no "meeting of the minds" required to at least begin to consider some legal basis on which Mr. Hutchinson might be entitled to recover. [10] Based on the foregoing, the Claimant's claim is dismissed. Dated at Truro, in the County of Colchester on the 10 1 h day of July, 2019. Original Court File Copy Claimant(s) Copy Defendant(s) 3
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.