Small Claims Decisions

Date Issued: January 13, 2020

File: SC-2019-007551

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Hoff Tree Services Ltd v. Wilson, 2020 BCCRT 44

BETWEEN:

HOFF TREE SERVICES LTD

APPLICANT

AND:

ALAN WILSON and FRANCES ALEXANDER

RESPONDENTS

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Rama Sood

 

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment for services. The applicant, Hoff Tree Services Ltd, says the respondents, Alan Wilson and Frances Alexander, failed to pay for two site visits and a tree risk assessment report. The applicant seeks payment of $2,415. The applicant is represented by Alex Goldkind, who I infer is a principal or employee.

2.      The respondent, Alan Wilson, denies the applicant’s claim. Mr. Wilson says he only agreed to a $250 site visit charge but that he did not request a report. Mr. Wilson says that the applicant sent written reports without his prior approval or authorization.

3.      The respondent, Frances Alexander, says he was not involved in the matter in dispute. The respondents are 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. 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.

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.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondents authorized the applicant’s billed work, and if so, whether they must pay the applicant $2,415.00 for services.

EVIDENCE

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities. I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

10.   Mr. Goldkind was pruning trees for Mr. Wilson’s neighbor when they met. On the same day Mr. Goldkind conducted a visual inspection of Mr. Wilson’s property at Mr. Wilson’s request. The parties did not provide the date of the initial meeting.

11.   Mr. Goldkind says he pointed out several issues to Mr. Wilson about the trees on his property and advised him he would need an arborist report in order to obtain a permit from the municipality before any work could be done on the trees.

12.   On June 18, 2019, Mr. Wilson texted Mr. Goldkind to ask about having a site assessment done. The parties agreed to a date for a site assessment for the $250 minimum charge after which Mr. Wilson could decide whether he wanted to order a tree risk assessment report. There was no mention about the cost of the report.

13.   On June 20, 2019 RT, the applicant’s risk assessor, conducted a site visit of Mr. Wilson’s property. Following the visit, RT prepared a 12 page report dated June 26, 2019. While there is reference to “reports” in the evidence, only one tree risk assessment report was prepared.

14.   On July 8, 2019 Mr. Goldkind texted Mr. Wilson and asked for his email address so he could send Mr. Wilson an invoice for the reports.

15.   Mr. Wilson responded by text that he did not receive RT’s written reports and provided Mr. Goldkind with his email address. The evidence is unclear whether Mr. Wilson provided his email address in order to receive the report or to receive the invoice. On July 8, 2019 Mr. Goldkind emailed the report to Mr. Wilson.

16.   On July 31, 2019 Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Goldkind for the invoice for the reports. The applicant emailed to Mr. Wilson a July 28, 2019 invoice for $850 plus GST for “Tree Risk Assessment for 3 Over Permit Sized Trees West Vancouver & General Site Checkover”.

17.   The applicant submitted in evidence a second July 28, 2019 invoice for $2,300 plus GST that lists two items - $500 for “2 site visits and consultations” and $1,800 for “3 oversized tree assessment for pruning application.” The evidence does not show that this invoice was sent to Mr. Wilson.

18.   After receiving the invoice for $850 plus GST, Mr. Wilson emailed the applicant that the price quote was for $250 and requested a corrected invoice. The parties exchanged several text messages on July 31, 2019. Mr. Goldkind stated that the price he quoted was $250 per tree, not $250 per assessment. He further stated that if the applicant was hired to do work, there would be a price adjustment on the scope of the work but the risk assessment is a set price. Mr. Wilson responded to Mr. Goldkind that the agreement was a report would cost $250.

19.   Mr. Goldkind says he sent a text to Mr. Wilson advising him that while the cost of the report would normally be $500 minimum per tree, he would consider lowering the price if there were multiple trees on the basis that Mr. Goldkind would perform the work required on the trees. A copy of this text message was not provided by either party.

20.   Mr. Wilson sent the applicant a cheque for $262.50 and advised Mr. Goldkind that he was postponing the tree work until next spring. Mr. Goldkind rejected the cheque because in the memo section it stated that it was “payment in full”. A copy of the cheque was not provided by either party.

21.   The applicant says that in the invoice for $850 plus GST, the tree report and 2 site visits were heavily discounted because Mr. Wilson agreed that the applicant would perform the work once he received approval from the district.

22.   The applicant says the invoice for $2,300 is the undiscounted cost of the services provided. The applicant now wants to charge the standard rates and exclude any discounts that would have applied because the respondents have disputed the first invoice.

ANALYSIS

23.   I find that the parties agreed to a fee of $250 plus GST for the site visit that took place on June 20, 2019 and that the cost of a report would be an additional charge. Mr. Goldkind stated clearly in his text message to Mr. Wilson that the visit would cost “the minimum charge” of $250 for the visit, after which Mr. Wilson could decide on whether to order the report.

24.   I find that only one site visit was conducted and that Mr. Wilson should pay the applicant $250 plus GST for this visit. While the applicant initially provided a visual inspection of Mr. Wilson’s property, there is no evidence that the applicant notified Mr. Wilson there was a fee for this visit. Also, the applicant provided a statement from RT about the work that he did and a copy of RT’s report. Neither of these documents indicate that RT attended Mr. Wilson’s property multiple times.

25.   The central issue in dispute is whether Mr. Wilson requested the report. I find that at no point did Mr. Wilson state that he did not want the report and I find his statements to Mr. Goldkind imply that he expected to receive a report.

26.   Mr. Goldkind initially asked Mr. Wilson for his email address on July 8, 2019 so he could send an invoice for the reports. Mr. Wilson replied that he had not received the reports and provided his email address. If Mr. Wilson had not wanted the report, I find it more likely he would have objected to it rather than requesting a copy of it.

27.   Although Mr. Wilson received the report on July 8, 2019, he did not notify Mr. Goldkind that he never requested it. In addition, on July 31, 2019 Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Goldkind to provide him with an invoice for the report. On balance, I find Mr. Wilson’s conduct shows that he expected a report and an invoice for it. His next text to Mr. Goldkind on July 31, 2019 shows that his only objection was to the cost of the report. Specifically, he stated “You saw our property and said your guy would give us a report for 250.00. That is what I am prepared to pay”.

28.   As for the report’s cost, I find that the applicant’s evidence is inconsistent and contradictory.

29.   In the first invoice, the applicant charged $850 plus GST for the site visit and report. If the agreed cost for the site visit is $250 plus GST, then the cost of the report would be $600 plus GST.

30.   However, Mr. Goldkind’s text messages to Mr. Wilson indicate that the applicant was charging $250 per tree, not $250 per assessment. Mr. Goldkind also stated that the risk assessment is a set price. Based on this, the report would cost $750 plus GST ($250 per tree for 3 trees).

31.   Contrary to Mr. Goldkind’s text messages, the applicant now seeks $1,800 for the report on the basis that it is excluding any discounts since the respondents disputed the first invoice. This implies that the invoice for $850 plus GST was discounted. However, that would be inconsistent with Mr. Goldkind’s text message to Mr. Wilson that the risk assessment is a fixed price and his submission that price adjustments would only be considered for future work the applicant is hired to perform.

32.   The applicant also provided copies of invoices for other clients to show how much risk assessment reports can cost. I am not giving any weight to these invoices because they are not relevant to what the parties agreed.

33.   I find that the invoice for $850 plus GST is the most reliable evidence about the report’s cost. Based on the invoice and adjusting for the cost of the site visit, I find that the applicant charged the respondent $600 plus GST for the report.

34.   I find the applicant is entitled to a total of $892.50 for the cost of the site visit and the June 26, 2019 tree risk assessment report.

35.   I find that the applicant has not proved that the respondent Frances Alexander had any involvement in the disputed agreements and so I dismiss its claims against the respondent Frances Alexander. I find only Alan Wilson is responsible.

36.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the tribunal. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgement interest on the amount of $892.50 from July 28, 2019, the invoice date, to the date of this decision. This equals $8.11.

37.   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.

38.   I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in tribunal fees.

39.   Although the applicant claimed dispute-related expenses, it did not provide an amount or receipts and I dismiss this claim.

ORDERS

40.   Within 30 days of this decision, I order the respondent Alan Wilson to pay the applicant a total of $1,025.61, broken down as follows:

a.    $892.50 in debt,

b.    $8.11 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 as reimbursement of tribunal fees.

41.   The applicant is further entitled to post-judgment interest as applicable. I dismiss the applicant’s claims against Frances Alexander.

42.   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.

43.   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.