Date Issued: November 15, 2018

File: SC-2018-002038

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Apollo Landscaping Ltd v. The Owners, Strata Plan K 491,

2018 BCCRT 735

Between:

Apollo Landscaping Ltd

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan K 491

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment for landscaping services. The applicant, Apollo Landscaping Ltd, says the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan K 491, failed to pay for mowing, trimming, and irrigation work performed in August 2017. The applicant seeks payment of $1,183.95.

2.      The respondent says the applicant did not complete all of the contracted work. The respondent says it paid in full for the portion of the work that was performed.

3.      The applicant is represented by its principal, Andrew Steven. The respondent is represented by a strata council member, Monica Lange.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      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.

5.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. 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.

6.      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.

7.      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. 

ISSUES

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the applicant is entitled to payment of $1,183.95 for landscaping work.

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 evidence shows that the parties had an ongoing contract, signed in October 2016, for some specific tasks such as tree removal and spring cleaning in 2017, plus some repeating tasks such as weekly lawn mowing and annual irrigation startup. The respondent cancelled the applicant’s services in accordance with the contract on August 31, 2017.

11.   The parties agree that the respondent made a large deposit of $14,950 towards the respondent’s landscaping work in February 2017, before the spring 2017 work began, and then made various payments on invoices provided by the applicant after that. The respondent provided an accounting statement showing all the payments it says it made, and indicating that after the final invoice was paid the respondent should have had an account credit of $617.54.

12.   The applicant disputes this, and says the respondent owes $1,183.95. However, I find the applicant has not met the burden of proving its claim.

13.   There are numerous problems with its invoices. For example, as noted by the respondent, the applicant issued different invoices with the same number, but with different content, including the amounts owed. As another example, invoice 6254, was added incorrectly, and shows a total owed of $724.50, which appears to be a mistake imported from a prior invoice.

14.   Also, the applicant was not able to produce the original invoices provided to the respondent. The applicant says the amounts are the same in the invoices provided in evidence, and they simply look different than the originals because they changed their accounting software. However, the burden of proving the claim rests with the applicant, and the fact that they cannot produce the original invoices does not support their claim, particularly given the history of errors in those invoices (as admitted in the applicant’s August 27, 2017 email to the respondent).

15.   I also note that the $1,183.95 claimed by the applicant does not match any single outstanding invoice, or any combination of invoices. The applicant has not provided a clear explanation of exactly what work the $1,183.95 was charged for, and when. The applicant also did not explain how it arrived at the $1,183.95 amount claimed. For example, it is unclear from the evidence before me whether that amount is all labour charges, or if part of it is interest or taxes. Also, based on the applicant’s evidence item A6, a statement of accounts created by the applicant, it appears that the claimed $1,183.95 may include invoices 6749 and 6819, which are for tribunal filing fees related to this dispute. This is not a legitimate part of the applicant’s claim for payment for work performed. The applicant has also separately claimed for reimbursement of tribunal filing fees. Also, the applicant did not provide a copy of at least 1 invoice shown on the statement of accounts, invoice #6751.

16.   For all of these reasons, I conclude that the applicant has not provided a clear accounting to support its claim for $1,183.95. I therefore find that the applicant has not met the burden of proving its claim. Accordingly, I dismiss the applicant’s claim, and this dispute.

17.   Under section 49 of the Act, and tribunal rules, the tribunal will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for tribunal fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As the applicant was not successful, I dismiss its claim for reimbursement of tribunal fees.

18.   The respondent claims $157.50 for its property manager’s time spent dealing with the dispute. Tribunal rule 132 says that except in extraordinary cases, the tribunal will not order one party to pay to another party any fees charged by a lawyer or another representative in the tribunal dispute process. Consistent with this rule, I therefore do not order reimbursement for the property manager’s time.

ORDER

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