A British Columbia tribunal has ordered a woman to reimburse her former fiancé more than $5,000 for a missing engagement ring after finding it was more likely than not that she kept the ring after the couple’s relationship ended.
The dispute before the Civil Resolution Tribunal stemmed from a March 2020 marriage proposal in which the applicant, who uses gender-neutral pronouns, gave their partner an engagement ring valued at $4,859.68.
When the relationship ended in August 2022, the applicant made repeated requests to either get the ring back or be reimbursed for the cost. The former fiancée said she could not find it, claiming the ring was a gift anyway.
The woman also told the tribunal that her former partner had already taken the ring back during an argument in 2020 when their relationship was deteriorating.
The small claims dispute was argued before tribunal vice-chair Kandis McCall, who reviewed text messages exchanged between the couple after their breakup, according to the tribunal’s decision Wednesday.
Argument ‘makes no sense’
A series of messages from 2022 showed the applicant pleading for the ring back, with the former fiancée saying “several times” that she would return it, according to the decision.
In one exchange, the applicant asked for the ring to be returned via courier, to which the respondent said she would not trust a courier with such a valuable item.
The following month, the respondent said she “needed to be at peace with the end of their relationship before returning the ring,” according to McCall’s summary of the exchange.
“Later the same day, she also said that she did not have the ring, but (the applicant) was welcome to go through the boxes in her garage to find it,” the decision said.
One month later, the respondent again affirmed via text that she could not locate the ring.
McCall found those statements contradicted the respondent’s later assertions that the applicant had already taken the ring back in 2020.
“At no time in the exchange of messages did (the respondent) remind (the applicant) that they had already taken the ring,” the decision said.
The respondent countered that she was only trying to avoid conflict and was not admitting she still had the ring, but the tribunal dismissed the argument.
“It makes no sense that she would change her reason for not returning the ring and invite (the applicant) to her home to look for it if she did not have it in her possession, particularly if she was trying to avoid conflict,” McCall wrote.
B.C. law on engagement rings
The tribunal found that B.C. law is clear that an engagement ring must generally be returned to the original purchaser if the engagement ends before marriage.
And because the parties did not live together “continuously in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years” at the time of the dispute, the province’s Family Law Act, which governs the division of property between unmarried partners, does not apply, the decision said.
The tribunal ruled that the applicant met the burden of proof in showing that the ring’s recipient had most likely either kept or lost the ring after the relationship soured.
“It follows that (the applicant) is entitled to either receive the ring itself, or be reimbursed for its value,” McCall wrote. “Because (the respondent) insists she does not have the ring, I decline to order her to return it.”
Instead, McCall ordered the recipient to reimburse her partner for the full purchase price of the ring, finding there was no evidence showing the ring had depreciated in value, as the recipient later argued.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay her former partner’s tribunal fees of $175 and dispute-related expenses of $21.12, for a total reimbursement amount of $5,055.80.
RELATED STORIES:
