Date Issued: January 12, 2021

File: SC-2020-005759

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Luciuk v. Vancouver Gas Fireplaces Ltd., 2021 BCCRT 37

Between:

TREVOR LUCIUK

Applicant

And:

VANCOUVER GAS FIREPLACES LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about an alleged breach of contract to install a fireplace.

2.      The respondent, Vancouver Gas Fireplaces Ltd. (VGF), agreed to supply and install a fireplace at the respondent, Trevor Luciuk’s, home. Mr. Luciuk says VGF refused to install the fireplace, cancelled the contract, and returned Mr. Luciuk’s deposit. Mr. Luciuk says he had to pay another company (Company X) a higher fee to install the fireplace. He claims $4,401.15, which he says is the difference between VGF’s agreed upon price, and Company X’s price paid by Mr. Luciuk.

3.      VGF acknowledges that it agreed to install Mr. Luciuk’s fireplace, then cancelled the contract. VGF says it only agreed to the quoted cost based on a competitor quote provided by Mr. Luciuk. VGF says it was entitled to end the contract because Mr. Luciuk misrepresented the competitor’s quote. VGF says it returned Mr. Luciuk’s deposit and owes him nothing further.

4.      Mr. Luciuk represents himself. VGF is represented by its owner, SP.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      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

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether VGF wrongfully terminated the parties’ agreement and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil claim such as this one, it is up to Mr. Luciuk, as the applicant, to prove his claim on a balance of probabilities. I have reviewed all evidence and submissions provided by both parties but only refer to it as needed to explain my decision.

11.   The following facts are not disputed:

•         In early July 2019, Mr. Luciuk contacted VGF and requested a quote to supply and install a STUV 2195 fireplace in his home.

•         On July 26, 2019 a VGF sales agent (SA) quoted $10,615 for the fireplace unit, plus hardware and installation costs.

•         On July 31, 2019 SA viewed Mr. Luciuk’s home, and provided a total, after tax quote of $16,446.15. Mr. Luciuk asked SA to reduce the price. Mr. Luciuk sent SA excerpts from Company X’s quote. SA sent an updated quote of $16,038.75.

•         On August 8, 2019, VGF received $8,000 from Mrs. Luciuk as a deposit on the fireplace and installation. I infer Mrs. Luciuk paid the deposit on behalf of Mr. Luciuk.

•         On August 23, 2019 VGF cancelled the contract.

•         Between August 26 and August 29, 2019 VGF refunded the $8,000 deposit to Mrs. Luciuk.

•         On September 3 and 6, 2019, Mr. Luciuk asked VGF to honour the July 31, 2019 updated agreement, but VGF refused.

12.   I find the July 31, amended quote was VGF’s offer and that Mr. Luciuk accepted that offer by paying the $8,000 deposit, through Mrs. Luciuk. So, I find the July 31, 2019 quote became a contract between the parties.

13.   Mr. Luciuk says VGF breached the contract by failing to provide the installed fireplace at the agreed upon price. VGF says it was entitled to end the agreement, because Mr. Luciuk misrepresented the competitor’s quote he provided to VGF on July 31, 2019. I infer VGF says that it entered into the agreement based on Mr. Luciuk’s misrepresentation.

14.   A misrepresentation is a false statement made during negotiations, or in an advertisement, to induce a reasonable person to enter a contract (see Van Beek v. Dodd, 2010 BCSC 1639). While most of the case law focusses on the seller’s misrepresentation, I find the principles apply equally to a buyer’s misrepresentation. To establish a claim of misrepresentation, VGF must prove that Mr. Luciuk’s statement about the competitor’s quote was untrue, and that VGF relied on that statement to enter into the amended July 31, 2019 agreement.

15.   The July 31, 2019 original quote included $10,615 for a STUV 21/95 double sided fireplace, $1,798 for venting, $2,800 for labour, $450 for freight, plus GST.

16.   Based on the July 31, 2019 emails between the parties, I find Mr. Luciuk asked VGF to reduce their prices to match quotes Mr. Luciuk had received from unnamed competitors. VGF agreed to match the prices, if Mr. Luciuk would send VGF the competitor’s quote. Mr. Luciuk declined to provide the whole quote, but cut and pasted into his email an excerpt from the competitor’s quote, without naming the vendor. The excerpt quoted $10,500 for the fireplace, $1,730 for the venting and $2,500 for labour, which I find included a larger scope of work than VGF’s labour scope. Mr. Luciuk proposed paying $2,250 to VGF for labour. On behalf of VGF, SA provided the amended July 31, 2019 quote, which included $10,500 for the fireplace, $1,750 for venting, and $2,250 for labour, $450 for freight plus GST. I find VGF reduced their price by $407.40 in the amended quote.

17.   VGF says the fireplace manufacturer, STUV, asked VGF why it discounted the fireplace so heavily, compared to Company X’s quote, which STUV learned about from Company X. VGF obtained a copy of Company X’s quote for Mr. Luciuk’s project from STUV. After reviewing that quote, I find Company X quoted both a single-sided fireplace unit and installation, and a double-sided fireplace unit and installation. I find Mr. Luciuk copy and pasted Company X’s quote into his July 31, 2019 email to VGF, as the font and wording are identical. I further find Mr. Luciuk copy and pasted Company X’s quote for supplying and installing a STUV 1295 single-sided fireplace, and not Company X’s quote for installing a double-sided fireplace, which is what VGF was quoting on. Company X’s quote clearly separates their prices for the double-sided fireplace and installation from their prices for the single-sided fireplace and installation. I agree with VGF that Mr. Luciuk misrepresented the competitor’s quote to VGF on July 31, 2019.

18.   Mr. Luciuk says he was not obliged to provide a competitor’s quote, that it was not standard practice in the industry, and that the information he provided on July 31, 2019 was not relevant to the terms of his contract with VGF. I disagree. I find the information provided by Mr. Luciuk, while not a term of the parties’ contract, was a misrepresentation made by Mr. Luciuk in negotiating the contract’s terms, specifically the price. Based on the parties’ July 31, 2018 emails, I find VGF only lowered their price to $16,038.75 based on the competitor’s quote provided by Mr. Luciuk. So, I find VGF entered into the July 31, 2019 amended agreement, based on Mr. Luciuk’s misrepresentation.

19.   I agree with Mr. Luciuk that VGF originally quoted the double-sided fireplace unit at $10, 615, which is much lower than the $15,540 quoted by Company X. Neither party provided any evidence from STUV, or elsewhere, showing what the actual manufacturing cost of the STUV double-sided fireplace is for VGF or Company X, nor any evidence about the typical mark-up either company would apply on the fireplace. While it is possible that VGF originally underquoted the fireplace cost, Mr. Luciuk has not proven this. The evidence does not support that VGF cancelled the contract because it originally underquoted the double-sided fireplace cost, as Mr. Luciuk alleges.

20.   Based on SA’s August 23, 2019 email to Mr. Luciuk, I find VGF cancelled the July 31, 2019 agreement because Mr. Luciuk did not provide Company X’s entire, or accurate, quote to VGF during the contract negotiations. As I find VGF entered the July 31, 2019 agreement based on Mr. Luciuk’s misrepresentation, I find it was entitled to cancel the contract and treat the relationship at an end.

21.   Even if I had found VGF breached the contract by failing to perform the agreed upon fireplace installation, I would have found Mr. Luciuk has not proven the damages he claims.

22.   Damages for breach of contract are intended to put the claimant in the same position he would have been in had the contract been carried out by both parties (see Water’s Edge Resort v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 219). Mr. Luciuk claims he paid $4,401.15 more than VGF’s $16,038.75 quote for the supply and installation of the STUV double-sided fireplace. Mr. Luciuk has not provided any evidence, such as an invoice, showing what he paid, and whether it was for the same fireplace and scope of work set out in VGF’s July 31, 2019 contract. It is undisputed that Mr. Luciuk received his $8,000 deposit back from VGF, through Mrs. Luciuk. So, I find he has not proven he suffered any damages, or extra cost, due to VGF’s non-performance of the July 31, 2019 contract. I dismiss Mr. Luciuk’s claim for $4,401.15.

23.   As Mr. Luciuk was unsuccessful in his claim, I find he is not entitled to reimbursement of any CRT fees or dispute-related expenses, under the CRTA and CRT rules. VGF, as the successful respondent, paid no CRT fees and has not claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

24.   I dismiss Mr. Luciuk’s claims, and this dispute.