Date Issued: January 7, 2019
File: SC-2018-000139
Type: Small Claims
Civil Resolution Tribunal
Indexed as: Place Crete Systems L.P. dba Floor Tech Systems v. Perimeter Construction Ltd., 2019 BCCRT 15
Between:
Place Crete Systems L.P. dba Floor Tech Systems
Applicant
And:
Perimeter Construction Ltd.
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR DECISION |
|
|
Tribunal Member: |
Sarah Orr |
INTRODUCTION
1. The applicant, Place Crete Systems L.P. dba Floor Tech Systems, performed floor grinding work for the respondent, Perimeter Construction Ltd. The applicant issued the respondent an invoice for the work for $7,770. The respondent paid the applicant $2,998.09. The applicant wants the respondent to pay $4,771.91 for the balance of the invoice. The respondent says it has already paid the applicant more than it deserves.
2. Both parties are represented by principals or employees.
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 118 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 demeanor 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. 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 the recent decision Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282 at paragraphs 32 to 38, in which the court recognized the tribunal’s process and 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.
ISSUES
7. The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent must pay the applicant the $4,771.91 invoice balance.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
8. In a civil claim like this one, the applicant must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities. This means the tribunal must find it is more likely than not that the applicant’s position is correct.
9. The respondent filed a Dispute Response but chose not to provide evidence or submissions for this decision, despite multiple communications from the case manager. In this situation, an adverse inference may be drawn against the respondent, which means it is generally assumed that the applicant’s position is correct. This is similar to when a respondent fails to provide any response at all to the dispute and is in default, so the respondent’s liability is assumed.
10. I have only addressed the parties’ evidence and submissions to the extent necessary to explain and give context to my decision. For the reasons that follow, I find the respondent must pay the applicant the balance of the invoice.
11. On November 24, 2016 the applicant sent an initial quote to The Wet Paint Co Ltd. for floor grinding work at a warehouse over 3 days for an estimated cost of $11,500 plus GST. The quote attaches a floor plan of the warehouse with various measurements. The applicant says the initial quote was for work on approximately 18,000 square feet of flooring. It is unclear from the initial quote or the floor plan the precise square footage of the work area, but I find the measurements on the floor plan correspond roughly with the applicant’s claim of 18,000 square feet.
12. The respondent made various statements in the Dispute Response, including that the initial work area was 11,000 square feet and that the applicant promised to complete the work within 5 days, but provided no evidence in support. I prefer the applicant’s evidence and I accept that the initial quote was for work on approximately 18,000 square feet of flooring to be completed in 3 days.
13. The respondent says a tenant was moving into the space on December 1, 2016 and that time was of the essence. The respondent says the applicant started work on November 30, 2016 but its equipment broke down immediately and the applicant left the site. The respondent says the applicant returned two days later with different equipment which also broke down, although the applicant was able to fix the equipment within a few hours and worked through the night to catch up. The respondent said that because the applicant was running behind on its work, the tenant reduced the area where the applicant was to conduct the work to 4,199 square feet.
14. When the respondent made a partial payment of the invoice to the respondent in August 2017, it included its calculations with the payment. The respondent drew diagrams of measurements showing how it arrived at its calculation of 4,199 square feet, however it is unclear how these drawings relate to the floor plan of the warehouse.
15. The applicant says it was required to complete the work in 2 days instead of 3 days as originally quoted, and that it performed the work on November 29 and 30, 2017. The applicant did not provide an explanation for the reduced time period or scope of work but says that accelerating the work required its employees to work double shifts and overtime.
16. The applicant says that the reduced work schedule caused the scope of its work to be reduced from 18,000 square feet to approximately 8,000 square feet. On December 8, 2016, the applicant emailed the respondent a revised quote for $7,400 plus GST for the areas depicted on an attached drawing of the warehouse floor plan. Although it is unclear from the floor plan the precise calculation of the work area, the measurements on the floor plan roughly correspond with the applicant’s claim that it worked on 8,000 square feet of flooring.
17. The applicant says the final square footage of the work area was measured on site when the work was performed, and its billing reflects the actual quantities completed. The applicant’s email with the revised quote instructed the respondent to call the applicant if it had any questions, which the respondent evidently did not do. The applicant says if the respondent had an issue with the quantities in the revised invoice it should have raised it at the time, while the flooring work was still easily measurable, but it failed to do so.
18. While there is conflicting evidence about the exact dates the applicant performed the work and the reason for the reduced scope of work, there is no dispute the applicant performed some work for the respondent. On balance, and based on the adverse inference against the respondent described above, I prefer the applicant’s evidence. I accept the applicant performed work over two days which required its employees to work extra hours. I find the applicant performed work on 8,000 square feet of flooring, and that the revised quote is the best evidence of the agreement between the parties.
19. There is no explanation as to why the applicant sent its initial quote to The Wet Paint Co Ltd. and sent its revised quote to the respondent, however it is undisputed that the respondent was the general contractor at the work site. The applicant emailed the revised quote to the respondent at the same email address the respondent provided on its Dispute Response.
20. The applicant issued an invoice to the respondent dated December 20, 2016 for $7,400 plus $370 GST for a total of $7,770. The applicant followed up with the respondent by email on April 10, 2017 and August 23, 2017. There is no evidence the respondent told the applicant the amount of the revised quote and invoice was incorrect, or otherwise communicated with the applicant at all until August 31, 2017 when it made a partial payment of $2,998.09. The respondent’s calculations show that it calculated a unit rate of 68 cents per square foot based on the revised invoice price of $7,400, and 11,000 square feet of work area. The respondent then multiplied the unit rate by 4,199 square feet to arrive at $2,855.32 plus $142.77 GST for a total of $2,998.09. I note that even if I accepted the respondent’s evidence about the scope of the work area, which I do not, the respondent’s calculation is incorrect. In all the circumstances, I find the respondent owes the applicant the balance of the invoice, which is $4,771.91.
21. Though it is not indicated anywhere on the invoice, the applicant says payment was due within 30 days of the invoice date. I find this to be reasonable in the circumstances. For the purposes of calculating pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act (COIA), I find the amount of the invoice was due on January 20, 2017.
22. 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. I see no reason in this case not to follow the general rule. I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $175 in tribunal fees. The applicant did not claim any dispute-related expenses.
ORDERS
a. $4,771.91 as payment for the balance of the applicant’s invoice,
b. $96.73 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and
c. $175 in tribunal fees.
24. The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.
25. Under section 48 of the Act, the tribunal will not provide the parties with the Order giving final effect to this decision until the time for making a notice of objection under section 56.1(2) has expired and no notice of objection has been made. The time for filing a notice of objection is 28 days after the party receives notice of the tribunal’s final decision.
26. Under section 58.1 of the Act, a validated copy of the tribunal’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. A tribunal order can only be enforced if it is an approved consent resolution order, or, if no objection has been made and the time for filing a notice of objection has passed. Once filed, a tribunal order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.
|
|
|
Sarah Orr, Tribunal Member |