Date Issued: January 15, 2021

File: SC-2020-005659

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Securassure Canada Inc v. Hanna, 2021 BCCRT 47

Between:

SECURASSURE CANADA INC

Applicant

And:

SERENE HANNA and ALLAN CONQUERGOOD

RespondentS

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Securassure Canada Inc, is a company that provides security systems. It entered into two concurrent 60-month term contracts with the respondents, Serene Hanna and Allan Conquergood. The applicant says it cancelled the respondents’ contracts on June 16, 2019 for “non-payment”. It seeks damages of $2,940 for the alleged breach of contract.

2.      The respondents dispute that they breached the contracts. They say the applicant breached the contracts by allegedly failing to provide them with the services as agreed in the contracts. They ask that I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

3.      The applicant is represented by an employee. Serene Hanna is self-represented. Allan Conquergood is represented by Darren Knutsen, who is not a lawyer.

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 that the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, or a combination of these. Though I found that some aspects of the parties’ submissions called each other’s credibility into question, I find I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me without an oral hearing. In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the court recognized that oral hearings are not always necessary when credibility is in issue. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate of proportional and speedy dispute resolution, I decided I can fairly hear this dispute through written submissions.

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 in this dispute is to what extent if any, the respondents must pay the applicant the claimed $2,940 in damages.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read and considered all the submitted evidence and argument, but I refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

10.   The undisputed evidence is that the parties signed 2 contracts on July 12, 2018 for security monitoring services. One contract was for the respondents’ residence and the other contract was for the respondents’ business.

11.   The respondents agreed to pay the applicant $30 per month per contract over 60-month terms. The 2 contracts were cancelled early, on July 12, 2018, about 11 months into the contracts. These facts are not in dispute.

12.   Without explanation, the applicant submitted no copy of the parties’ written contracts, though I understand they exist. The CRT informs the parties that they must submit all relevant evidence, which is set out in CRT rule 8.1(1). I find the applicant ought to have known the contracts were relevant and as it also seeks to rely on them, I find it should have submitted the contracts. The only documents the applicant submitted were some Telus call records related to its monitoring systems.

13.   The applicant says it performed the services and its security systems “worked” until it cancelled the respondents’ “accounts” for non-payment on June 16, 2019. I infer the applicant means it stopped providing the security services to the respondents after the initial 11 months.

14.   The applicant argues that the respondents must “fulfill their obligation to pay”. It seeks $2,904 for the remaining 49 months left on the two 60-month contracts at $30 per month each. As the applicant is not seeking payment for the initial 11 months, I find the respondents likely paid for these 11 months in full.

15.   The respondents say they owe nothing more on the 2 contracts. They say the applicant failed to fulfill its service obligations. They also say they were “plagued” with false alarms that were allegedly never addressed by the applicant’s technician. Further, they say the applicant did not cancel the contracts for non-payment. Instead, they say the contracts were “disconnected by another alarm company at our request”. I infer they mean it was the respondents and not the applicant who initiated the contract cancellations.

16.   As the contracts are not before me, I do not know precisely what the parties agreed to other than the payment terms. There is no evidence that the contracts had any specific clauses dealing with early termination. The applicant also does not say, and nor has it proven that the contract contained clauses addressing the consequences of a contractual breach, such as provisions for liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are a contractual pre-estimate of the damages suffered by a party in the event of a breach of contract.

17.   Without evidence to the contrary, I find either party was permitted to cancel the contracts before the end of their terms without penalty. Once the applicant stopped providing services, I find the respondents’ payment obligations ended as well. As I find the respondents paid for the 11 months of received services, I find the respondents complied with the contracts’ payment terms and owe nothing more.

18.   For the reasons above, I find the applicant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the respondents breached the contracts and I dismiss the applicant’s claim.

19.   As this ends the matter, I find no need to address the respondents’ arguments that the applicant failed to provide the agreed services. For the same reason, I have not commented on the respondents’ alternative argument that the applicant acted contrary to section 11 of the Security Services Act by allegedly failing to hold a security business license.

20.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, as the applicant was unsuccessful, I find it is not entitled to reimbursement of its paid CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute related expenses.

ORDER

21.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.