Date Issued: November 6, 2020

File: SC-2020-005402

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Inframe Films Inc. v. Neova Technologies Inc., 2020 BCCRT 1252

Between:

INFRAME FILMS INC.

Applicant

And:

NEOVA TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The respondent, Neova Technologies Inc. (Neova), hired the applicant, Inframe Films Inc. (Inframe), to capture and provide footage for use in a corporate film. Inframe says Neova only paid half of its invoice, so it seeks the balance, $2,239.13.

2.      Neova says Inframe failed to conduct the filming as requested and failed to provide enough usable footage. It says the claim should be dismissed.

3.      The parties are each represented by individuals I infer are employees or principals.

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). Section 2 of the CRTA states that 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 the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says 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, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue is whether Neova must pay Inframe the claimed $2,239.13 invoice balance, and whether that amount should be reduced for alleged deficiencies in Inframe’s work.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      As the applicant in this civil dispute, Inframe must prove its claim on a balance of probabilities. I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, but only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

10.   The parties agree that Neova hired Inframe to capture “b-roll footage” at Neova’s office and manufacturing facility. I understand from the evidence that b-roll footage is supplemental footage, usually shot without sound, to be interspersed with the primary footage (and audio) in a film or movie. In this case, the footage was to be used in a corporate film Neova was creating for or with its partner or parent company, Bioseutica.

11.   On May 4, 2020, Inframe provided Neova with a detailed written estimate. It is undisputed that the estimate captures the essence of the parties’ contract, subject to minor modifications the parties agreed to that I address below.

12.   The estimate confirmed that Inframe was to supply 1 camera operator and 1 assistant over 2 production days. The estimate said Inframe agreed to use a cinema quality 4k camera, an assortment of lenses, a stabilizer for moving shots, LED lights, and necessary grip equipment. There is a separate charge for aerial photos and video, shot using a drone. Under “video production services” Inframe agreed to transfer the footage to Dropbox for download at no charge. There are no other production services in the estimate.

13.   The total estimated cost was $4,488.75. The evidence indicates that Neova paid $2,296.87 on June 5 and said it would process the remainder “the following pay run.” However, Neova was dissatisfied with the footage and refused to pay anything more.

14.   So, did Inframe do what it was required to do under the terms of the parties’ contract? For the reasons that follow, I find that it did.

15.   It is undisputed that Inframe filmed on June 3 and 5, 2020, at Neova’s office and manufacturing facility in Abbotsford with 1 camera operator and 1 assistant. It is also undisputed that Inframe supplied the aerial footage as required.

16.   Neova says 80% of the shots are not stable as they were shot without stabilizing equipment as required, and the footage overall is poor. Inframe says given the live and unrehearsed workplace environment, it is expected that some footage will have some shaky parts. On review of the footage provided by Inframe, I find nearly all of the footage is smooth, not shaky, and professional looking. Inframe’s photographs from the shoot also confirm that Inframe used a sliding tripod and other stabilizers while filming.

17.   Neova submitted 20 minutes of footage to support its argument that the footage was shaky and unusable. While I agree that much of the footage is shaky, I find the majority of the unsteadiness occurs at the beginning and end of otherwise stable shots that were obviously filmed with a tripod or other stabilizing device. In other words, I find the shaky parts are when the camera operator was setting up or repositioning between shots.

18.   The parties’ agreement, as clearly expressed in the estimate, was for Inframe to deliver “raw footage” without editing. Given this, I agree with Inframe’s submission that some shaky and unusable shots are to be expected, and that it is the editor’s job to select and edit the best shots.

19.   Inframe submitted a 4 minute and 30 second video it says Neova posted on YouTube. Because Neova did not argue otherwise, I find that this is the final product. It included several quick cuts showing various Bioseutica facilities in BC as well as Europe. I find the final product included footage supplied by Inframe as well as others. I find that Inframe was only supposed to supply footage for use in the BC section of the video, which spans approximately 1 minute.

20.   In submissions, Neova simply restated its position that the service did not meet its requirements and required additional work. It did not elaborate on what additional work was required or what, if any, costs it incurred to bring the footage in line with its requirements, or obtain additional footage. There is no evidence that Neova hired another contractor to film footage of its BC facility.

21.   A contractor must perform its work to a reasonable professional standard. I find that expert evidence is not required to establish a reasonable professional standard for 2 days of b-roll filming. I find the standard is that the footage is of sufficient quality and quantity that it can be used for its intended purpose. The parties’ contract did not include a number of minutes of usable footage. Moreover, Neova did not explain how Inframe’s footage fell below a reasonable standard, other than to say that it was shaky. As noted above, Inframe provided smooth, professional-quality footage. On balance, I find that Inframe’s film footage met a reasonable professional standard. This is further supported by the undisputed fact that Neova, in its final film, used many shots provided by Inframe.

22.   So, how much does Neova owe? Inframe’s claimed $2,239.13 includes $47.25 for a USB drive on which it provided the footage to Neova. This was not part of the estimate. I find that when Neova asked for the footage on a USB drive, Inframe obliged. I find there was no discussion, or agreement, on price. Inframe did not provide any evidence showing the cost of a USB drive, and given it acknowledges the USB drive was in used condition, I find Inframe provided it freely and is not entitled to anything for the USB drive. I therefore reduce the claim to $2,191.88 and order Neova to pay this amount.

23.   In its final reply submissions, Inframe asked for an additional $175 for supplying stock aerial shots of Vancouver that were used in Neova’s video, outside of the estimate. I decline to allow any claim for the stock aerial shots because this was not part of Inframe’s $2,239.13 claim as set out in the Dispute Notice. Allowing this aspect of the claim would not be fair to Neova because it was not raised until the final reply, so Neova had no opportunity to respond to it. As well, it is not clear that the parties agreed on price, or that Inframe incurred any costs to supply the shots.

24.   Although Inframe did not claim interest, the Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT and says interest must be added in the absence of an agreement on interest. Inframe is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,191.88 award from June 9, 2020, the date the invoice was due. This amounts to $6.06.

25.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I find Inframe is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

26.   Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order Neova to pay Inframe a total of $2,322.94, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,191.88 in debt for the invoice,

b.    $6.06 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125.00 for CRT fees.

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

28.   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 Province of British Columbia has enacted a provision under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act which says that statutory decision makers, like the CRT, may waive, extend or suspend mandatory time periods. This provision is expected to be in effect until 90 days after the state of emergency declared on March 18, 2020 ends, but the Province may shorten or extend the 90-day timeline at any time. 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.

29.   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.