Date Issued: November 21, 2019

File: SC-2019-004508

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Maher v. Rona Inc., 2019 BCCRT 1314

Between:

DENNIS MAHER

Applicant

And:

RONA INC.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about 2 invoices for gate repair work.

2.      CPM Facility Maintenance Inc. (CPM) hired the applicant, Dennis Maher, to repair a parking access gate for the respondent, Rona Inc.

3.      The applicant seeks $228.37 for the gate repair work and $49.87 for providing follow-up documentation that CPM requested. He seeks a total of $555.00, so I infer that the difference ($276.76) represents his claim for time spent to follow up about payment.

4.      The respondent does not dispute the original invoice for $228.37, but refuses to pay anything else.

5.      The applicant is self-represented. The respondent is represented by an employee.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6.      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 (CRTA). 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.

7.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions because I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

8.      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.

9.      Under tribunal rule 9.3(2), in resolving this dispute the tribunal may make one or more of the following orders, where permitted under section 118 of the CRTA:

a.    order a party to do or stop doing something;

b.    order a party to pay money;

c.    order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUE

10.   The issue in this dispute is whether the applicant is entitled to payment for anything other than the initial gate repair work.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil claim such as this, the applicant must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities. I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, but only refer to what is necessary to explain and give context to my decision.

12.   The relationship between CPM and the respondent was not explained, but I infer that CPM provides the respondent with property maintenance services. In Keddie v. Canada Life Assurance Co., 1999 BCCA 541, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a company may be liable for the conduct of its agent if the agent had actual or apparent authority. The respondent did not argue that CPM did not have such authority, so I find that CPM was the respondent’s agent and had the authority to bind it in contractual agreements about property maintenance and repair.

13.   On November 26, 2018, CPM emailed the applicant with a request from one of the respondent’s retail locations in BC to repair its yard entrance gate. The respondent completed the repairs the following day.

14.   It is undisputed that the respondent owes the applicant $228.37 for the gate repair work, as noted on the applicant’s November 27, 2018 invoice. The dispute is about second invoice.

15.   On December 3, 2018, a CPM representative emailed the applicant, asking for his ‘WCB clearance’ and ‘insurance certificate’. The applicant replied that he was not advised that this information was needed. He added that he would provide it but would charge a service fee.

16.   In response, the CPM representative explained that because of audits in the past she now only used contractors with WCB accounts in good standing. She said, “I will pay you regardless, but we will not be able to use your services moving forward if you do not have an account or will not provide it.”

17.   On or about December 6, 2019, the applicant emailed the CPM representative with his insurance information and WCB number. He also attached the second invoice for $49.87 for half an hour of his time to provide the information.

18.   In January 2019 the applicant followed up about payment. A different CPM representative advised that CPM would only pay the applicant’s first invoice if the applicant voided the second invoice.

19.   In his submissions, the applicant argues that the respondent should pay both invoices because the applicant completed the initial work as requested and was not notified of any requirement to provide his insurance information and WCB registration number before the work was completed.

20.   While those facts are not disputed, they only satisfy his entitlement to the first invoiced amount. In order to be entitled to the second invoiced amount, the applicant must show that he had a valid agreement with CPM to provide the information for a fee.

21.   I find that the applicant offered to provide the requested information to CPM for an unspecified fee. In response to the applicant’s offer, the CPM representative said that CPM would “pay [him] regardless.” I interpret this to mean that CPM was prepared to pay the initial invoice regardless of whether or not the applicant provided the requested information, but the applicant was free to provide that information if he wanted future business. I therefore find that the applicant voluntarily provided the requested information. I also find that the CPM representative did not accept, either expressly or by implication, the applicant’s offer to provide the information for a fee.

22.   As the applicant has failed to prove the required agreement, I dismiss his claim for $49.87 for the second invoice.

23.   The applicant also said he should be compensated for 5 hours of his time spent calling and meeting with the respondent’s representatives to obtain payment. I find that the applicant has not proved that he is entitled to compensation for his time. First, the evidence is clear that the respondent would have paid the applicant’s first invoice had the applicant voided the second invoice, which I found there was no basis for. Second, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim, such as time records and name of people he contacted. I dismiss the claim for any additional compensation.

24.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the tribunal. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $228.37 from November 27, 2018, the date of the invoice, to the date of this decision. This equals $4.26.

25.   Under section 49 of the CRTA 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 partially successful, I find he is entitled to reimbursement of half his $125 paid for tribunal fees, or $67.50. He did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

26.   Within 10 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $295.13, broken down as follows:

a.    $228.37 in debt,

b.    $4.26 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $62.50 in tribunal fees.

27.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

28.   I dismiss the applicant’s remaining claims.

29.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, 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.

30.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, 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.