Man who claimed he couldn’t own property wrongly claimed his property was taken, tribunal rules

A driver who argued he shouldn’t have to pay a towing company because he didn’t consent to have his vehicle impounded and that he couldn’t own property recently had his case dismissed.

On February 27, 2023, the RCMP issued Ben Delville an immediate roadside prohibition and ordered his SUV-crossover to be impounded for 30 days.

The vehicle, a 2008 Infiniti FX35, was impounded by Coquitlam Towing and Storage Co.

After 32 days, Delville paid $917 to get his car back. However, he later asked for his money back on the grounds that he didn’t have a contract with the towing company nor consent to Coquitlam Towing impounding his vehicle.

The driver argued he couldn’t own property “because of the birth registration process,” wrote Civil Resolution Tribunal member Leah Volkers in her decision.

According to Delville’s reasoning, he can’t own property and therefore he: “cannot possibly owe any debt.”

However, Delville’s evidence included a recorded phone call with Coquitlam Towing in which he accused the company of taking his property without his consent and said he would charge the company $800 for each day it kept his property.

“So, it appears Mr. Delville argues both that he cannot own property or owe debts, and also that the vehicle is his property and can charge Coquitlam Towing a daily rate,” Volkers wrote.

In his submissions, “Delville used language that is sometimes used by followers of the ‘sovereign citizen’ or ‘freemen on the land’ ideologies,’” Volkers noted.

Delville referred to himself as both, “i, the man, Benjamin,” as well as: “i, man.”

Volkers noted that followers of these ideologies sometimes attempt to: “split themselves into separate persons” in a bid to reject court and state authority.

“These concepts have been rejected multiple times in courts across Canada and in B.C.,” Volkers noted.

Volkers held Delville responsible for towing and impound fees. The tribunal member also dismissed Delville’s claim for reimbursement of $11.36 in dispute-related expenses.

The case was decided by evidence and submissions from the two parties. Volkers judged an oral hearing to be unnecessary.