Date Issued: June 16, 2020

File: SC-2019-008115

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution CRT

Indexed as: Sacro Tiles & Flooring Ltd. v. Metrotown Flooring Centre Ltd.,
2020 BCCRT 667

Between:

SACRO TILES & FLOORING LTD.

Applicant

And:

METROTOWN FLOORING CENTRE LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment for a flooring and tile job. The applicant, Sacro Tiles & Flooring Ltd. (Sacro), says the respondent, Metrotown Flooring Centre Ltd. (Metrotown), owes $2,496.38 for a January 10, 2018 invoice.

2.      Metrotown admits the job was “completed in full”. It says it withheld payment for it due to alleged deficiencies in a prior job for which it had fully paid Sacro in December 2017. Metrotown did not file a counterclaim. Sacro denies deficiencies in the prior job.

3.      Sacro is represented by NK and SP, who I infer are Sacro employees. Metrotown is represented by EE, who I infer is an employee.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). The CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT 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 CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In the circumstances here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me.

6.      The CRT 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 CRT 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 CRT may: order a party to do or stop doing something, order a party to pay money, or order any other terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      Must Metrotown pay Sacro the claimed $2,496.38 for the job, or, is Metrotown entitled to a set-off for alleged deficiencies in a prior job?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Sacro bears the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities. I have only discussed the parties’ evidence and submissions to the extent necessary to give context to my decision.

10.   Sacro’s invoice #1031 for the job is for $2,496.38, the amount claimed in this dispute. That invoice matches the work order for the job. As noted above, Metrotown admits Sacro completed the job, which was for client LM, without issue.

11.   Metrotown’s defence in this dispute is that Sacro did a poor job on a prior job, which was for client TN. As also noted above, Metrotown did not file a counterclaim.

12.   I find the prior job is not sufficiently connected to the job to consider any set-off. I say this because the job and prior job were for entirely different projects and different end customers, and completed at different times (see Wilson v. Fotsch, 2010 BCCA 226 for a description of the criteria for a set-off).

13.   However, even if a set-off were possible here, I find it is not warranted. The fact that Metrotown did not get paid by TN is on its own insufficient to hold Sacro responsible for alleged deficiencies. It is undisputed that Metrotown paid Sacro in full for the prior job in December 2017, and then raised no concerns about the work for about a year.

14.   The burden of proving deficiencies is on the party alleging them, which here is Metrotown (see Lund v. Appleford Building Company Ltd. et al, 2017 BCPC 91). I find Metrotown has not met that burden with respect to the prior job. There are a few emails in evidence between Metrotown and TN, and between Metrotown and Sacro. There are some invoices for materials, which Metrotown says were for the prior job. However, Sacro denies the alleged deficiencies. Further, there is no objective expert evidence before me that Sacro’s work on the prior job was deficient. There are also no photos of the prior job. Plus, the evidence shows Sacro was not given any opportunity to correct the alleged deficiencies. Overall, I find there is simply insufficient evidence to conclude Sacro’s work on the prior job was deficient or warrants any set-off against Sacro’s invoice for the job.

15.   So, I find Metrotown must pay Sacro’s January 25, 2018 invoice for $2,496.38, without deduction or set-off.

16.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Sacro is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the COIA on the $2,496.38, from the invoice’s February 12, 2018 due date to the date of this decision. This interest equals $102.22.

17.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their CRT fees. I see no reason to deviate from that practice here. I find Sacro is entitled to reimbursement of $150 in paid tribunal fees. I dismiss Metrotown’s claim for fee reimbursement.

ORDERS

18.   I order the respondent Metrotown to pay the applicant Sacro a total of $2,748.60, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,496.38 in debt,

b.    $102.22 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $150 in tribunal fees.

19.   Sacro is entitled to post-judgment interest as applicable.

20.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, the CRT 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 CRT’s final decision. The Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General has issued a Ministerial Order under the Emergency Program Act, which says that tribunals may waive, extend or suspend a mandatory time period. The CRT can only waive, suspend or extend mandatory time periods during the declaration of a state of emergency. After the state of emergency ends, the CRT will not have this ability. A party should contact the CRT as soon as possible if they want to ask the CRT to consider waiving, suspending or extending the mandatory time to file a Notice of Objection to a small claims dispute.

21.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. A CRT 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 CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.