Date Issued: July 8, 2019

File: SC-2019-000336

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Copeland v. Comox Valley RV Ltd., 2019 BCCRT 815

Between:

CHRISTOPHER COPELAND

Applicant

And:

COMOX VALLEY RV LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about repairs done on a 1990 Travelaire recreational vehicle (RV) owned by the applicant, Christopher Copeland. The applicant says on December 13, 2018 he hired the respondent, Comox Valley RV Ltd., to re-do the RV’s roof and seal leaks, but that when he got the RV back the repairs were not done properly or to his instructions. The applicant claims $4,600 for repairs, towing bills, and hotel charges.

2.      The respondent says its repairs were done correctly. The respondent says the leaks that occurred after their repair were not in the area the applicant asked to be repaired.

3.      The applicant is self-represented and the respondent is represented by its owner, Danny Keyes. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

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 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.

5.      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.

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 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

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent improperly repaired the applicant’s RV roof, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. Although I have reviewed all of the parties’ evidence and submissions, I have only referenced what I find necessary to give context to my decision.

10.   The respondent says its repair quote was $3,500 plus tax, but the applicant says it was $2,000. The original quote amount does not show on either the respondent’s work order or the invoice, discussed further below. The respondent says it came in under budget and charged $2,966.53 plus tax, which the applicant paid. Nothing turns on the amount of the original quote. I note that a part of this invoice was for work on the RV’s rotted floor, which is not at issue here. Only the RV roof repairs are in dispute. The respondent’s invoice does not clearly separate the billing between the roof and the floor, but I find the majority of the work was to the roof.

11.   As set out below, one issue is the agreed scope of the respondent’s work for the roof repair. Another issue is whether the respondent’s work was done to a professional standard. After the respondent’s roof repairs, the applicant says the RV continued to leak.

12.   It is undisputed and the evidence shows that the applicant only wanted a partial roof repair of the RV, because the applicant was on a tight budget. The photos in evidence, mostly detailed ‘before, during, and after’ repair photos provided by the respondent, show the RV was quite rotted, inside and out.

13.   The applicant’s complaint is that he says the respondent’s partial roof repair did not repair as much of the roof as the applicant instructed, alleging the respondent only repaired 4 feet when the applicant asked for 10 feet. However, the applicant did not provide any clear photos identifying the missing repair areas.

14.   On balance, I find the weight of the evidence does not support the applicant’s position that the respondent was specifically instructed to repair more of the RV’s roof than was done. There is no written repair agreement for the RV. However, the respondent provided a “work order” and an invoice, both dated December 13, 2018, the day the applicant brought the RV in to the respondent. I find these 2 documents best represent the parties’ agreement, as they were created at the time.

15.   The work order notes the applicant asked for an inspection and diagnosis, and “what it will take to fix the roof/floor and give that roof some structure”. The invoice includes that work order and a line item “customer ok’d today to repair roof”. The invoice details show the respondent’s work included: remove old moldings “in order to remove damaged roof”, cut old roof and remove metal, clean old caulking off moldings, build new roof panel and install, and caulk where necessary.

16.   The respondent says the applicant attended their shop halfway through the job and approved of the progress. The applicant does not deny this, and I accept it. I find all of the above supports the conclusion that the respondent’s version of the scope of work is the most likely.

17.   Because of his tight budget, the applicant says he told the respondent that he wanted them to frame in the roof and leave it uninsulated and unsheathed and says that the respondent agreed. Yet, the respondent bought certain materials and charged the applicant $296.92 for them.

18.   The parties agree that the respondent gave the applicant a $250 refund on December 19, 2018, which the respondent says was done as a good-will gesture because the applicant was complaining. Based on the applicant’s notations on the respondent’s bill, the materials he objected to were insulation, sealant, and hardboard, for a total of $296.92. However, there is no other evidence before me to support a conclusion the respondent bought materials the applicant had specifically instructed them not to buy. On balance, I reject the applicant’s position on this issue.

19.   The applicant also says the respondent’s workmanship on the roof work they did do was poor. As noted, the applicant says when he brought the RV home it leaked worse than before. The applicant says that he found “several places” where the leaks were and that all were directly related to the respondent’s work.

20.   First, I acknowledge the applicant provided photos of the RV, pointing to a small hole in the surrounding rotted roof, small gaps in a seam, and another with gaps in caulking. I am unable to tell from the photos that these areas relate to the roof area that was repaired by the respondent, as opposed to the other area of the roof that I find fell outside the scope of repair. In particular, based on the respondent’s photos of the roof repair job it did, which involved separately building a roof section and installing it, I find it unlikely the hole was caused or improperly left by the respondent. Also, the hole sat in a rotted area that I find was clearly not part of the new roof the respondent created. I say the same about the caulking work.

21.   Second, the respondent admits it inadvertently made a small cut into the RV sidewall where it met the roof. The applicant says this created a leak, and the respondent never fixed it. The respondent says the applicant unreasonably never gave it the opportunity to repair the minor cut that would require only a “dab of sealant” to repair, and that they cut was so minor it could not have led to the leaks the applicant complains of.

22.   In order to succeed in a claim of negligence, the applicant must establish each of the following elements on a balance of probabilities:

a.    The respondent owed the applicant a duty of care;

b.    The respondent breached the standard of care;

c.    The applicant sustained damages; and

d.    The respondent’s breach of the standard of care caused the applicant’s damages, in fact and law.

Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27 at paragraph 3

23.   Clearly, the respondent owed the applicant customer a duty of care. I accept the small cut breached the standard of care, as it is undisputed it was unintentional. The issue here is whether the small cut caused the leaks the applicant complains of. I find the weight of the evidence does not support that conclusion. My reasons follow.

24.   The respondent provided a statement from Murray Daviduck, its red seal carpenter, who says the roof had no support so it had to be re-built. Mr. Daviduck’s statement and accompanying photos show he tested for leaks by leaving ½-inch of water on the new roof for 1.5 hours, and no leaks were found.

25.   Next, the parties agree the applicant brought the RV back to the respondent on December 21, 2018, 8 days after the roof repair. The parties agree water testing was done on the December 21 visit. Based on Mr. Daviduck’s statement and attached photos describing paper towel being left dry below their new roof repair during the water test, I find the evidence shows no leak was found. I note the respondent’s undisputed evidence that the applicant’s father paid for the December 21 water testing and accepted its results. The applicant did not address that water test and did not provide a statement from his father.

26.   I acknowledge the applicant provided a screenshot of an email from a Richard Mcintyre, who stated that he is a local red seal RV technician. Mr. Mcintyre said the applicant contacted him shortly after the respondent’s repair, and that a brief inspection revealed the forward passenger sidewall had been accidentally cut into in line with the repair, and had never been repaired. As noted, I accept this evidence, which is undisputed. Mr. Mcintyre wrote, “a simple mistake gone uncorrected which ended up allowing more water to enter the [ceiling], requiring additional repairs”. He added that this issue was “definitely not the level of expertise expected from a professional RV service department”. Notably, Mr. Mcintyre does not otherwise criticize the respondent’s roof repair job.

27.   While I accept the small cut fell below the standard of care, Mr. Mcintyre does not explain how the small cut could cause the leaks at issue, nor does he address the location of the leaks. Mr. Mcintyre also does not address the water tests that were done nor does he indicate any knowledge of the agreed-upon scope of work overall. I find Mr. Mcintyre’s statement does not prove the small cut caused the leaks at issue.

28.   The applicant has provided no evidence to contradict that a small dab of sealant is all that is required to fix the small cut. The applicant admits he refused to allow the respondent to do the minor fix. On balance, I find there is no basis for compensation for fixing the small cut or for any refund of the respondent’s invoice.

29.   Even if I had found the respondent negligent or in breach of the parties’ contract, I would not have ordered all of the damages claimed. While the applicant says he incurred towing bills and hotel costs, he provided no receipts or invoices. I would not have allowed those expenses.

30.   In summary, as I have found the respondent’s roof repair work did not cause the applicant’s claimed damages, I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

31.   In accordance with the Act and the tribunal’s rules, as the applicant was unsuccessful I find he is not entitled to reimbursement of tribunal fees. There were no dispute-related expenses claimed.

ORDER

32.   I order the applicant’s claims and this dispute dismissed.