Date Issued: December 10, 2019

File: SC-2019-004336

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Safire Sales Inc v. Weber, 2019 BCCRT 1388

Between:

SAFIRE SALES INC

Applicant

And:

SCOTT WEBER

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Safire Sales Inc, does business as Titan Garage Doors. The applicant says the respondent, Scott Weber, hired it to repair his garage door, which it did. The applicant wants the respondent to pay it $651 for its garage door repair services.

2.      The respondent says it only asked the applicant for a quote, and it did not give the applicant authority to complete the repairs.

3.      The applicant is represented by its principal and the respondent is self-represented.

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 (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.

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 “they said, they 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 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.

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 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

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent authorized the applicant to complete garage door repairs on his property, and if so, to what extent the applicant is entitled to payment.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim like this one, the applicant must prove its claim on a balance of probabilities. This means I must find it is more likely than not that the applicant’s position is correct.

10.   The respondent filed a Dispute Response and made submissions but chose not to provide evidence despite having the opportunity to do so. I have only addressed the applicant’s evidence and the parties’ submissions to the extent necessary to explain and give context to my decision.

11.   It is undisputed that the applicant repaired the respondent’s garage door on March 30, 2019, and the applicant invoiced the respondent $651 for the repairs. The issue I must determine is whether the respondent authorized the applicant to complete the repairs.

12.   The respondent says that on the morning of March 30, 2019, a tenant residing at his property notified him that the garage door panels had come off their tracks. The respondent says he told his tenant that he would obtain quotes from several companies to determine the cost of repairing the garage door. He did not provide a statement from his tenant to support this assertion.

13.   It is undisputed that the respondent called the applicant on March 30, 2019 at approximately 10:15 a.m. about his garage door. The applicant says the respondent requested garage door repair services during the phone call. It says when it arrived at the property later that morning, the garage door was completely disconnected from the garage and laying on the driveway. It provided a photo supporting this assertion. The applicant says the respondent verbally agreed to pay for the repairs on March 30, 2019 and gave the applicant his email address so it could email him the invoice. The applicant does not specify whether the respondent provided his verbal agreement on the phone or in person at the property. The applicant says the respondent left the property before the applicant completed the repairs.

14.   The applicant’s evidence shows it sent the invoice to the respondent at 12:07 p.m. on March 30, 2019, at which time it says it was still working on the repairs and the respondent was no longer at the property. The applicant does not explain why it sent the respondent the invoice before it completed the repairs, or how it calculated the total cost of the repairs before it completed them. The invoice describes the applicant’s work as including garage door repair, track repair, counterbalance setup, garage door balancing, service call, lubrication, and “10b nylon roller x 1.” It does not appear to charge the respondent on a time basis.

15.   The respondent says the applicant was the first company he called on March 30, 2019, and he set up an appointment for that day for the applicant to provide an estimate to repair the garage door. He says the applicant told him it would send someone to the property within 2 hours. The respondent says when he arrived at the property at approximately 12:00 p.m. the applicant had almost finished repairing the garage door and demanded payment. He says his tenant told him at that time that he had assembled the door panels and the applicant had re-installed them in under an hour.

16.   The respondent says he did not authorize the applicant to complete the repairs, and that he only authorized it to provide an estimate. He says his tenant completed half the work by reassembling the panels, and he never would have authorized a $651 bill for repairs that took less than an hour.

17.   The applicant says it values its reputation and customer service and it never would have proceeded with repair work without the respondent’s consent.   

18.   On balance, I prefer the applicant’s evidence. It is undisputed that the applicant repaired the garage door. While the respondent says his tenant assembled the garage door panels, there is no corroborating evidence to support this assertion, such as a statement from the tenant. The applicant submitted a recording of a conversation one of its representatives had with the respondent’s tenant sometime after March 30, 2019 when it was seeking payment from the respondent. The tenant acknowledged in that conversation that the applicant repaired the garage door, and he did not mention anything about reassembling the garage door panels himself. The respondent says the tenant was disgruntled because the respondent had evicted him for non-payment of rent at the time of that conversation. However, even without relying on the evidence of the applicant’s conversation with the tenant, I still prefer the applicant’s evidence.

19.   As noted, the respondent did not provide a statement from his tenant or any other evidence supporting his assertion that he only asked the applicant for an estimate, as opposed to hiring it to repair the garage door. I find it unlikely the respondent would have left the applicant at his property in the middle of its repairs if, as he says, he came to the property to find the applicant performing unauthorized repairs. There is also nothing in the invoice or other evidence to support the respondent’s insinuation that the applicant overcharged him because the repairs took such a short amount of time. As noted above, the invoice indicates the applicant did not charge for its services on a time basis. For all of these reasons, I prefer the applicant’s evidence. I find the respondent must pay the applicant $651 for the invoice.

20.   The respondent says the applicant harassed his tenants by demanding payment and demanding they give it the respondent’s address. However, the respondent did not file a counterclaim, the tenants are not parties to this dispute, and the evidence before me indicates that the applicant’s representative had a voluntary conversation with one of the respondent’s tenants sometime after March 30, 2019. I therefore decline to further address these allegations in this decision.

21.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the tribunal. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $651 owing calculated from March 30, 2019, which is the date the invoice was due, to the date of this decision. This equals $8.90.

22.   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. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. Since the applicant was successful, I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in tribunal fees. It did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

23.   Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $784.90, broken down as follows:

a.    $651 in debt for the garage repair invoice,

b.    $8.90 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in tribunal fees.

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

25.   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.

26.   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.