B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a man to return a $4,500 deposit for the purchase of a helicopter.
According to an April 29 decision, Joseph Cadham sent the deposit to Luc Levasseur to purchase the helicopter.
Cadham said that when Levasseur arrived with the helicopter, he lacked the proper documents to prove he owned it, did not allow Cadham to properly inspect it, disclosed late that he had made a strut and attached it to the helicopter, which could lead to a compromised structure, and insisted on cash payment, which was not a term of the contract.
Levasseur denied liability.
He said the tribunal was an improper forum for this dispute and alleged Cadham breached the contract by failing to provide a certified cheque for the balance of $40,500 for the helicopter.
Levasseur also claimed he was entitled to $1,476.23 for rental expenses, hotel costs, and gas. He further claimed $6,000 for travel and food expenses as a dispute-related expense.
Tribunal member David Jiang said photos showed the helicopter as being relatively small, seating only one person. Jiang said Levasseur transported the helicopter by placing it on a trailer towed by a van.
“They travelled from Ontario and met the applicant in B.C. in mid-September 2023,” Jiang said.
Cadham claimed the deposit was only meant to “secure” the helicopter. He claimed the parties agreed on the phone that he would only buy the helicopter once ownership papers and documentation were verified, and they had seen the helicopter run.
Levasseur claimed Cadham actually purchased the helicopter and the $4,500 was a partial payment. He asserted he was entitled to keep the partial payment as Cadham allegedly repudiated the contract, and Levasseur suffered damages in the form of out-of-pocket expenses.
“The challenge here is that the parties did little to document any agreements about either the deposit or the sale,” Jiang wrote.
The tribunal concluded the pair had an agreement because Cadham paid a considerable deposit and Levasseur in turn spent a great deal of time and expense to move the helicopter, as reflected in several receipts in evidence.
For Jiang, the case turned on the documentation. He said Levasseur failed to produce it as evidence.
“I find the evidence would show the respondent does not own the helicopter, or the evidence simply does not exist,” Jiang ruled.
Further, Jiang found Levasseur did not meet the conditions of the sale and ordered the deposit returned.
