Date Issued: January 24, 2020

File: SC-2019-006392

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bell v. Whyte, 2020 BCCRT 84

Between:

JOHN BELL

Applicant

And:

MICHAEL WHYTE

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, John Bell, hired the respondent, Michael Whyte, to do work in the applicant’s condominium as part of a renovation, including preparing the drywall for painting. The applicant says that the respondent completed some of the tasks so poorly that he had to hire someone else to fix or redo them. The applicant says that the respondent agreed to pay him $500 but never did. In this dispute, the applicant initially claimed $1,000 but later revised his claim to $808.86. The applicant says that this was the cost of hiring someone else to fix the respondent’s mistakes.

2.      The respondent says that the applicant never told him that he had any problem with the respondent’s work. He says that he never had the opportunity to see or fix any issues.

3.      The parties are each 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 pay money or to do or stop doing something. The tribunal’s order may include any terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Does the respondent owe the applicant for repairs to the drywall?

b.    Does the respondent owe the applicant for other repairs to the respondent’s work?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

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

10.   The applicant says that he first hired the respondent in July 2018 by responding to an online “handyman” ad. The applicant hired the respondent do to a variety of jobs in his condominium, including installing drapes and blinds and preparing the walls and ceiling for painting.

11.   The applicant says after the respondent was finished, his general contractor and painter attended to continue the renovations. He says that when they saw the walls and ceiling, they both said that the respondent’s drywall work would need to be redone before painting.

12.   The applicant provided a statement from his general contractor, who says that he could see bubbles forming behind the drywall tape and that the mud texture was rough and uneven. The applicant also provided a statement from the painter, who also confirmed that there was a “substantial amount of work to be done. The applicant says that he hired another person to redo the drywall repairs at a cost of $500, which is supported by an invoice.

13.   The applicant says he found other problems with the respondent’s work, such as hanging blinds too close to the windows and installing a kickplate that prevented the dishwasher from opening. He says his general contractor corrected these errors at a cost of $308.86.

14.   The applicant says that he met with the respondent on October 8, 2018. He says that he presented a spreadsheet outlining the problems with the respondent’s work. The applicant says that they agreed to a settlement where the respondent would pay the applicant $500 by January 31, 2019.

15.   The respondent says that the applicant had him come to the October 8, 2018 meeting under false pretenses. I infer from his brief submissions that he does not agree that the parties agreed to a settlement for $500. In any event, it is undisputed that the respondent did not pay the applicant any money before January 31, 2019. Neither party argues that the parties have a binding settlement agreement.

16.   Regarding the $500 for the drywall repairs, I accept the general contractor’s and painter’s evidence that there were deficiencies that needed to be fixed before painting. They have no interest in the outcome of this dispute. Also, their evidence is supported by many photographs that show poor quality drywall work. Based on the invoice provided, I find that the applicant spent $500 fixing the respondent’s errors.

17.   As for the rest of the repairs, the applicant provided an invoice from his general contractor for 3.5 hours of work at $65 per hour, which as noted above works out to $308.86 after tax. The invoice says that it was for “general repairs”. I find that it is not clear that these “general repairs” were related to the respondent’s work. The general contractor does not explain this invoice in his evidence, and does not mention any problems with the respondent’s work other than the drywall. Despite providing over 20 photographs of the drywall problems, the applicant did not provide any photographs about any other defects or issues. Given that the applicant bears the burden of proof, I find that the applicant has not proven this claim.

18.   The respondent’s main argument is that he should have been allowed to fix any issues with his work. The applicant says that he did not reach out to the respondent to fix the issues because he had lost confidence in him. Given that the general contractor and painter both gave negative comments about the respondent’s work when they first saw it, I find that the applicant’s decision was reasonable.

19.   Accordingly, I award the applicant $500 for the drywall repairs. I dismiss his claims for the other repairs.

20.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the tribunal. I find that the appropriate date to calculate pre-judgment interest is the day the new drywaller provided the applicant with an invoice, which was August 28, 2018. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgement interest on the $500 from August 28, 2018, to the date of this decision. This equals $12.85.

21.   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. The applicant has been partially successful so I award him reimbursement of half of his tribunal fees, which equals $67.50.

ORDERS

22.   Within 28 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $580.35, broken down as follows:

a.    $500 in damages as reimbursement for drywall repairs,

b.    $12.85 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $67.50 for half of the applicant’s tribunal fees.

23.   I dismiss the applicant’s remaining claims.

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.