Date Issued: June 18, 2019

File: SC-2019-000348

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Call 4 Heat Ltd. v. You, 2019 BCCRT 743

Between:

CALL 4 HEAT LTD.

Applicant

And:

KAI YOU

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment for heating system repair services the applicant, Call 4 Heat Ltd., provided to the respondent, Kai You. The applicant claims a total of $1,606.50. The respondent denies liability, and says he did not agree to the charges and that the work was not done properly.

2.      The applicant is represented by Bo Zhou, who I infer is a principal or employee. The respondent is self-represented.

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. 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 9.3(2), 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.

ISSUE

7.      The issue in this dispute is to what extent, if any, the respondent owes the applicant $1,606.50 for heating system repair services.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      In a civil claim such as this, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have only referenced the evidence and submissions as necessary to give context to my decision.

9.      In its application for dispute resolution, the applicant said that it was not aware of any service to the respondent’s boiler in 20 years, which is consistent with the applicant’s 2018 search for records for the respondent. I accept the respondent’s evidence, based on a photo of the applicant’s service sticker, that the applicant had serviced the boiler in December 2013. However, nothing turns on the applicant’s failure to recall the earlier service, 5 years before the 2018 service in question.

10.   It is undisputed the respondent and his wife called the applicant to service their heating system on November 19, 2018. It is undisputed that the respondent has paid nothing for the applicant’s work done on that date.

11.   The applicant says it flushed 6 heating zones at the “owner’s” request. In doing so, it found that the expansion tank membrane was defective. The applicant says the “home owner” agreed to have it replaced, and in their submissions the applicant says it was either Mr. You or Ms. You who agreed. The applicant claims $240 for the flushing and $400 for the replacement tank.

12.   The respondent says he only agreed to the pipes being flushed, and agreed to pay the associated fee. The respondent does not explain why he has not paid it. I find the applicant is entitled to $240 for the flushing, which I find is reasonable. I will address the tank below.

13.   The applicant says that in replacing the tank, it found that one of the heating circulation pumps did not run during the startup circulation test. It says it showed it to the applicant “on the spot” and said that it must be replaced. The system has 3 pumps and the applicant says the pump at issue was a “1/6HP” pump, 4 times larger than typical pumps. As shown in an Andrew Sheret waybill dated November 19, 2018, the applicant left to buy the pump the same day, after explaining the situation to the respondent’s wife Ms. You, who consented to its replacement. Given the tight crawl space where the pump was located, the applicant had 2 technicians working on the pump replacement.

14.   The applicant claims $800 for the replacement pump, plus $90 as a service call charge. With GST, all of the charges (flushing, replacement tank and pump, service call charge) total $1,606.50, the amount claimed in this dispute.

15.   On balance, I find it likely the respondent or his wife consented to the replacement of both the expansion tank and the pump. I find it unlikely the applicant would have left the respondent’s home to go buy the pump without getting authorization for such a large expense. Further, the respondent did not provide a statement from his wife, despite the applicant making it clear in the Dispute Notice that the respondent’s wife was the one who provided the consent for the new pump’s purchase and despite acknowledging in his Dispute Response that the applicant called his wife before the pump was changed.

16.   So, what about the amounts claimed for tank ($400) and the pump ($800)? I note the parties had no written agreement about the basis for payment, and I find the most reasonable conclusion is that it was on a time and materials basis, which is consistent with the applicant’s invoice. I find the $400 charge for the purchase of the tank and its installation to be reasonable and I allow it. The applicant submits that the list price of the pump was $541.97 plus tax, and that the location of the respondent’s pump made it difficult to replace. I accept this evidence, which I find is reasonable. It is not particularly disputed by the respondent and there is no contrary heating technician’s evidence before me. I allow the $800 claim for the pump. I also find $90 for a service call charge is reasonable, and I allow it.

17.   The applicant says during its repair, an ignition failure occurred during the boiler’s startup, which was caused by insulation falling on the burner. The applicant does not claim for the associated labour charge, as it agrees it could not fully address the problem because the “inner flame cover” was not removeable due to rust. The respondent alleges that this work damaged their boiler, but has provided no evidence in support, such as a statement from another heating technician. Instead, the respondent provided only a November 22, 2018 receipt for “boiler repair” and to fix the flame switch, but nothing in that receipt is critical of the applicant’s work. I therefore find nothing turns on the ignition failure issue, in terms of my assessment of the applicant’s claim for payment of the flushing fee, the expansion tank, and replacement pump.

18.   In summary, I allow the applicant’s claim for $1,606.50 for payment of its November 19, 2018 invoice. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act (COIA), from that date.

19.   In accordance with the Act and the tribunal’s rules, as the applicant was successful I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in tribunal fees, plus $11.31 for serving the Dispute Notice, which amount I find reasonable.

ORDERS

20.   Within 14 days of this decision, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $1,760.06, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,606.50 in debt,

b.    $17.25 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $136.31, for $125 in tribunal fees and $11.31 in dispute-related expenses.

21.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest under the COIA, as applicable.

22.   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.

23.   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.