Date Issued: November 13, 2018

File: SC-2018-000530

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: ENGLOUEN v. G3 CONSULTING LTD., 2018 BCCRT 716

Between:

MELISSA ENGLOUEN

Applicant

And:

G3 CONSULTING LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, MELISSA ENGLOUEN, says the respondent, G3 CONSULTING LTD., failed to pay her final invoice for consulting work performed under contract. The applicant seeks payment of $1,161 for work performed, plus $37.80 for expenses she says the respondent failed to reimburse.

2.      The applicant is self-represented. The respondent is represented by Gregory Thomas, a principal or employee.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 3.1 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (Act). The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the tribunal must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

4.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Some of the evidence in this dispute amounts to a “he said, he said” scenario. Credibility of interested witnesses, particularly where there is conflict, cannot be determined solely by the test of whose personal demeanour in a courtroom or tribunal proceeding appears to be the most truthful. The assessment of what is the most likely account depends on its harmony with the rest of the evidence. In the circumstances here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the tribunal’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary. I also note that in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282 at paragraphs 32 to 38, the BC Supreme Court recognized the tribunal’s process and found that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is in issue.

5.      The tribunal may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The tribunal may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

6.      Under tribunal rule 126, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may: order a party to do or stop doing something, order a party to pay money, or order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate. 

Jurisdiction over Employment Matters

7.      It is undisputed that Ms. Englouen was an independent contractor, rather than an employee of the respondent. For that reason, I find that the applicant’s claim for payment is within the tribunal’s small claims jurisdiction under the Act, and is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Standards Branch under the Employment Standards Act.

ISSUES

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the applicant is entitled to $1,161 for work performed, or $37.80 for work-related expenses.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities. I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

10.   The applicant says she did not receive the final payment of $1,161 for work performed under a contract, plus reimbursement of $37.80 for work-related expenses. She says the contract began in February 2017, and her last day of work under that contract was June 1, 2017.

11.   The respondent says they paid the applicant fully for all work and expenses, and there are no further amounts owed.

12.   I find that the applicant has met the burden of proving her claims. The applicant says the amounts owed were set out in “invoice #23”, but she did not provide a copy of that invoice. The respondent says they have no record of that invoice, and the last invoice they have on file is invoice #22, which was fully paid. The applicant has not provided contrary evidence, so I accept the respondent’s assertion that no further amount was owed.

13.   In making that finding, I note that in addition to providing no invoice, the applicant did not provide any particulars of the hours or days worked, nor any evidence of the type of work or tasks performed. She provided no receipts or particulars of the claimed work expense of $37.80. She also did not provide a copy of her contract with the respondent, although I accept based on the parties’ correspondence that such a contract existed. Without any of this evidence, there is nothing to support the applicant’s claims of $1,161 for work performed or $37.80 in expenses.

14.   The applicant says that in the past, WH, an employee of the respondent, generated invoices on her behalf. I accept that, based on the previous correspondence from WH provided in evidence. However, in a February 20, 2018 email to the applicant, entitled “Re” Last Cheque”, WH wrote that she had nothing outstanding on the books for the applicant. WH asked the applicant to send her anything she had outstanding, and she would take care of it. There is no indication in the evidence before me that the applicant provided the respondent with the requested information.

15.   In her submissions to the tribunal, the applicant wrote as follows:

The Applicant, Ms. Englouen, would like to clarify that she was able to generate the specific amounts … based on information that she possessed in her own records (e.g., total hours worked per day as per her personal calendar, hourly wage as per her copy of a signed contract and pay stubs, mileage per day as recorded in her personal vehicle). To address the Respondent’s above question, the Applicant, Ms. Englouen, confirms that she did not retain any company information (e.g., project and activity codes) with which to generate a completed invoice; She only possesses non-company owned information with which to calculate the specific amounts of required compensation she is requesting.

16.   The applicant did not provide the tribunal with any of this information about total hours work, her hourly wage, or her mileage, which she said she possessed. The tribunal process includes instructions to parties to provide all relevant evidence, and I find it was clear to the applicant that her records referenced in the quote above were relevant.

17.   For these reasons, I find that the applicant has not met the burden of proving her claims. She is therefore not entitled to any payment, and I dismiss her claims.

18.   The tribunal’s rules provide that the successful party is generally entitled to recovery of their fees and expenses. The applicant was unsuccessful and so I dismiss her claims for reimbursement of tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

19.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.