In May 2023, Rajat Verma, a lawyer based in British Columbia, sought to upgrade his mobile technology by purchasing a new smartphone through the official website of Samsung Electronics Canada Inc1. As part of this commercial transaction, Mr. Verma intended to utilize the manufacturer’s established trade-in program, which is designed to provide consumers with an upfront credit toward new hardware in exchange for their used devices. The process began with an online assessment tool provided by Samsung, where customers self-report the condition of their current electronics to receive an estimated valuation. Based on the information provided by Mr. Verma regarding the state of his existing phone, the online tool generated an initial trade-in quote of $145. Relying on this figure, Mr. Verma proceeded with the acquisition of his new device, and the $145 sum was deducted from his total purchase price.
The standard procedure for such programs requires the consumer to ship their old hardware to a third party assessor, which in this instance was a company known as Assurant, for a formal physical inspection. Following the receipt and evaluation of the device by Assurant, Samsung communicated a significant revision to the previously agreed upon valuation. The company informed Mr. Verma that the trade-in value was being reduced from $145 to a mere $58. This reduction was purportedly based on a finding that the phone was in a damaged condition that differed materially from the description provided during the initial online assessment. Specifically, Samsung alleged that the display was not fully functional and that there were defects or damage to the glass on the front or back of the unit.
Mr. Verma, disagreeing with the assessment of damage, initiated a complaint with the company. In response to his concerns, Samsung eventually offered to increase the trade-in credit to $101.50 in June 2023. However, Mr. Verma declined this compromise and instead sought specific details and evidence regarding the alleged damage that necessitated such a steep drop in value. He sent an email requesting clarification and followed up with a second inquiry when the first went unanswered. Despite these efforts to resolve the matter through direct communication, Samsung failed to respond to his requests for information. Instead, on July 5, 2023, the company proceeded to charge Mr. Verma’s credit card an additional $97.44. This charge was intended to claw back the $87 difference in the trade-in value and included a portion of a promotional discount associated with the original deal.
Faced with an unexpected charge and a lack of transparency from the electronics giant, Mr. Verma elected to represent himself in a legal action through the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia. He sought the return of the $87 difference and additionally claimed $1,000 in punitive damages, arguing that the company’s actions warranted a deterrent penalty. As a lawyer by profession, Mr. Verma navigated the tribunal’s small claims process, while Samsung was represented by a succession of two articled students throughout the various stages of the dispute. The Civil Resolution Tribunal, mandated by the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act to provide accessible and flexible dispute resolution, determined that the matter could be decided based on written submissions and documentary evidence without the need for an oral hearing.
A significant procedural hurdle arose during the tribunal’s investigation regarding the evidence provided by the respondent. Despite being granted multiple opportunities to submit documentation to support its claims of phone damage, Samsung failed to provide any evidence to the tribunal. The company’s representatives argued in their submissions that the necessary documents were not yet available but would be provided in due course. However, the tribunal found that Samsung had been given sufficient time to produce these records and had not requested a formal stay or pause in the proceedings. Tribunal Member Amanda Binnie noted that it would be procedurally unfair to Mr. Verma to further delay the resolution of the dispute while waiting for evidence that may or may not exist. Consequently, the tribunal proceeded to make a determination based solely on the evidence provided by the applicant.
In a twist that proved pivotal to the outcome, the evidence Mr. Verma provided included two photographs of the phone that Samsung itself had originally sent to him to justify the price reduction. The tribunal conducted a careful analysis of these images. The first photograph depicted the front of the device with the screen powered on, showing a fully functional display with no visible cracks, chips, or glass defects. The second photograph showed the top edge of the phone, where a small arrow pointed to very minor chips in the paint. Notably, Samsung did not provide any photographs of the back of the phone to support its claims of glass damage there.
The tribunal concluded that the very evidence Samsung had relied upon to lower the trade-in value actually contradicted its legal position. Member Binnie found that the photographs proved the front display was functional and the front glass was intact. Because the company failed to provide any visual evidence of the back of the device, the tribunal inferred that there were no issues with the rear glass either. While the tribunal acknowledged the existence of tiny chips in the paint along the top of the frame, it ruled that these were minor cosmetic issues that did not constitute a material difference from the description Mr. Verma had provided. Therefore, the tribunal found that Samsung was not entitled to reduce the trade-in value and had improperly charged Mr. Verma for the difference.
The secondary aspect of the dispute involved Mr. Verma’s claim for $1,000 in punitive damages. To support this claim, Mr. Verma pointed to a Reddit thread containing numerous complaints from other consumers who expressed dissatisfaction with Samsung’s trade-in practices. He argued that his experience, combined with the reports of others, demonstrated a pattern of conduct that breached the company’s duty of good faith and fair dealing. The tribunal, however, maintained a high threshold for the awarding of such damages. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate a victim for their loss but are instead meant to punish a wrongdoer for conduct that is truly outrageous, egregious, or high-handed.
In evaluating this claim, the tribunal referred to established Canadian legal precedents, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. These cases establish that punitive damages should be used with restraint and only in exceptional circumstances where a party’s behavior is highly reprehensible. Member Binnie ruled that a single Reddit page was insufficient evidence to establish a broad corporate pattern of bad faith. Furthermore, while the tribunal found Samsung’s reduction of the trade-in value to be incorrect and somewhat arbitrary, it did not find evidence that the company acted with malice or highly reprehensible intent. As a result, the claim for punitive damages was dismissed.
The tribunal also addressed a mention of aggravated damages in Mr. Verma’s submissions. Aggravated damages are intended to compensate a plaintiff for intangible injuries such as mental distress or anxiety caused by a respondent’s conduct. The tribunal declined to consider this claim because Mr. Verma had not included it in his original Dispute Notice, which serves to define the scope of the legal issues to be resolved. Additionally, the tribunal noted that even if the claim had been properly filed, Mr. Verma had provided no evidence to prove he suffered any compensable mental distress or intangible injury resulting from the $87 dispute.
In its final order issued on May 15, 2025, and later amended on January 6, 2026, the Civil Resolution Tribunal found in favor of Mr. Verma regarding the underlying debt. Samsung was ordered to pay Mr. Verma a total of $219.66. This sum represented the $87 difference in the trade-in value, $7.66 in pre-judgment interest calculated under the Court Order Interest Act, and a reimbursement of $125 for the fees Mr. Verma paid to file the tribunal application. Under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, the CRT generally orders the unsuccessful party to cover the successful party’s fees and reasonable expenses, though it rarely awards legal fees for professional representation. Since Samsung was unsuccessful in its defense, its request for costs was also denied.
The decision was finalized as a validated order, giving it the same force and effect as a judgment from the Provincial Court of British Columbia once filed. Samsung was given a period of 30 days from the date of the decision to satisfy the payment. The ruling serves as a reminder of the evidentiary requirements in consumer disputes, particularly the necessity for large corporations to provide clear documentation when altering the terms of a trade-in agreement after a transaction has already been initiated. Despite the disparity in resources between a global electronics manufacturer and an individual consumer, the tribunal process allowed for a resolution based on the available facts and the specific terms of the trade-in program.
Read more BC legal news here.
