A damaged vehicle after a repair visit doesn't prove that the garage caused every problem alleged. In Barclay v. Hodgson, 2026 BCCRT 1487, the Civil Resolution Tribunal separated a disputed cracked wheel from a brake sensor that the shop agreed it had damaged. The resulting award was far less than the customer's claim because the evidence didn't establish the cracked wheel's cause and her requested wage losses weren't adequately supported.
Rachelle Barclay brought her vehicle to the shop operating as Agassiz Auto Center after noticing low tire pressure and later finding a screw. The parties disagreed about whether the wheel rim was already cracked or was damaged during tire removal. Barclay said three other repair shops had confirmed the cause, but didn't provide their statements, photographs of the cracked rim or another qualified assessment. The garage supplied a general demonstration video about its equipment, which likewise didn't prove what happened to this wheel. The Tribunal accepted that the rim was cracked but found that Barclay hadn't proved the shop caused the crack, so it denied $300 for replacement used rims.
The garage had, however, agreed to reimburse $153.72 for a damaged brake sensor. A mechanic later told Barclay her vehicle wasn't safe to drive, and the Tribunal treated her inability to travel to work as a foreseeable consequence of the accepted repair error. That didn't establish her claimed lost wages of $449.76. She hadn't shown that alternatives such as a taxi or rental car were unavailable, and the duty to mitigate meant she couldn't simply charge the entire missed workday to the garage. The Tribunal allowed $100 as a fair amount for alternative transportation.
A separate $500 claim for Barclay's spouse missing work to take her to a medical appointment failed because there was no independent evidence of the appointment, cancellation fee or actual missed earnings. The tribunal allowed half the Tribunal fees, $62.50, reflecting partial success. It also dismissed the remaining claims and allowed applicable postjudgment interest.
The total amount ordered was $316.22, comprising $153.72 for the sensor, $100 for alternative travel and $62.50 in fees. The published reasons contain a small inconsistency in the operative paragraph, which labels the damage component $253.75 while ordering a $316.22 total. The earlier calculation states $253.72 in damages, which reconciles with that total. The practical distinction is between evidence that a service error occurred and evidence proving the particular losses that flowed from it. Shops should document vehicle conditions before and after service, while customers claiming lost earnings should retain documents showing both their income and why reasonable alternatives couldn't prevent the loss.