Date Issued: January 13, 2021

File: SC-2020-006045

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Lessard v. Boulton, 2021 BCCRT 39

Between:

RHIANNON LESSARD

Applicant

And:

JENNIFER BOULTON

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment for short-term rental cleaning and stocking services.

2.      The applicant, Rhiannon Lessard, says the respondent, Jennifer Boulton, has failed to pay outstanding invoices for cleaning and restocking the respondent’s short-term rental home. The applicant claims $2,197.52 for the outstanding balance.

3.      The respondent denies that they owe the applicant anything. The respondent says they have paid most of the invoices but refuse to pay the remaining balance because the applicant allegedly failed to properly clean or maintain the property. The respondent also says some of the property’s items are missing or broken.

4.      Both parties represent themselves.

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 the respondent must pay the applicant’s outstanding invoices and, if so, how much?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil claim such as this one the applicant must prove her claim on a balance of probabilities. I note the respondent provided no evidence, although they did make submissions. I have reviewed all submissions and evidence provided, but only refer to the evidence as needed to explain my decision.

11.   It is undisputed the parties have no written agreement. The applicant says the respondent verbally agreed to pay the applicant $230 for cleaning the property between each set of guests, and to reimburse the applicant supply costs to restock items such as toilet paper and coffee. As the respondent does not dispute this, I accept that the parties agreed on these terms.

12.   Based on the 2019 invoices submitted by the applicant, I also find she charged the respondent a $30 hourly rate for cleaning the applicant’s hot tub, responding to guest concerns, and minor repair such as tap repair and light bulb changes. As the respondent paid some of those invoices without dispute, I find the parties also agreed on a $30 hourly rate for maintenance work.

13.   The applicant submitted monthly invoices from January 2019 to January 2020, as well as banking records showing the respondent’s payments in 2019 and 2020. Based on the invoices and the banking records, I find the respondent paid the April through July 2019 invoices in full, so I will not consider those further.

14.   The invoices and banking records show the respondent overpaid the January 2019 invoice by $169.04 and the February 2019 invoice by $311.78, and underpaid the March 2019 invoice by $8.77. The applicant reimbursed the respondent $155.89 for the February overpayment. I find this left the respondent with a credit of $316.16 toward payment of cleaning fees.

15.   The applicant’s invoices show the respondent charged the applicant a total of $8,800.05 for cleaning, property work, and supply costs, between August 1, 2019 and January 30, 2020. Based on banking records I find the respondent paid a total of $6,500 toward that outstanding balance, between February and July 2020. Deducting the $316.16 credit I found above, I find an outstanding balance of $2,183.89 owing on the August 2019 to January 2020 invoices. It is unclear why the applicant claims $2,197.52. In any event, I find $2,183.89 is the correct amount owed by the respondent.

16.   The respondent says she should not have to pay the applicant anything because the applicant failed to properly maintain the hot tub and the property. The respondent says the guests complained and she had to provide refunds. Essentially, the respondent claims the applicant’s cleaning and maintenance work was deficient.

17.   The respondent agrees the hot tub was broken, but says she told the applicant about it, and what part to buy to fix it. Based on her invoices, I find the applicant regularly cleaned and filled the hot tub. The applicant says the respondent never raised any concerns about the quality of the applicant’s work until after the final invoices were outstanding, which the respondent does not dispute.

18.   As the respondent alleges deficiencies, they have the burden of proving them (see Lund v. Appleford Building Company Ltd. et al, 2017 BCPC 91). The respondent provided no evidence, such as photographs, guest reviews, or invoices showing further repair or cleaning costs, to support their allegation of deficiencies. Neither did the respondent explain what was wrong with the hot tub. On balance, I find the respondent has failed to prove any deficiencies.

19.   The respondent also says that, when she viewed the property, she found the TVs did not work, artwork and dishes were missing, and small appliances were broken. Yet, the respondent provided no supporting evidence. The applicant denies that she is responsible for any missing or broken items. Based on the applicant’s invoices, I find the applicant spent time and money replacing missing items such as pillows. On balance, I find it unlikely that the applicant caused, or was otherwise responsible for, damaged or missing items.

20.   I also find the respondent has failed to prove that the applicant caused water damage to the property by continuing to use the washing machine while it was leaking, as the respondent provided no evidence and the applicant specifically denies it.

21.   The respondent alleges the applicant has failed to refund a damage deposit to someone who rented a separate cabin on the property. I find that issue is between the applicant and the renter, as there is no indication that the applicant acted as the respondent’s agent, or otherwise made the respondent responsible for the damage deposit. I find that issue is not properly before me on this dispute.

22.   In summary, I find the respondent is not entitled to any set off against the applicant’s invoices. I find the respondent must pay the applicant $2,183.89.

23.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,183.89 debt from the January 2020 invoice to the date of this decision. As the invoice is undated, I find it was likely issued on February 1, 2020, based on the dates the applicant sent the respondent the other invoices. This interest equals $22.92.

24.   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 the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. She claimed no dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

25.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order Jennifer Boulton to pay Rhiannon Lessard, a total of $2,331.81, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,183.89 in debt,

b.    $22.92 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

26.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

27.   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.

28.   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.