Date Issued: May 20, 2021

File: SC-2021-000270

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: 546185 B.C. Ltd. dba Mr Rooter Plumbing v. Tran, 2021 BCCRT 546

Between:

546185 B.C. LTD. DBA MR ROOTER PLUMBING

Applicant

And:

MONG TRANG TRAN and MINH HAI DUONG also known as HENRY DUONG

Respondents

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, 546185 B.C. Ltd. dba Mr Rooter Plumbing (Mr Rooter), says it did plumbing work for the respondents, Mong Trang Tran and Minh Hai Duong, also known as Henry Duong.

2.      Mr Rooter requests payment of its $812.70 invoice, plus $200 for collection costs.

3.      The respondents have not paid anything for the work. Mr. Duong says he was quoted $400 for the plumbing work and did not authorize any additional work.

4.      Mr Rooter is represented by an employee. The respondents are represented by Mr. Duong.

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.      The CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In some respects, the parties in this dispute call into question each other’s credibility. Credibility of witnesses, particularly where there is conflict, cannot be determined solely by the test of whose personal demeanour in a courtroom or tribunal proceeding appears to be the most truthful. In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the court recognized that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is in issue. In the circumstances of this dispute, I find that I am able to assess and weigh the evidence and submissions before me. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and prompt resolution of disputes, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

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.

9.      CRT staff advised that Mong Trang Tran’s name was misspelled as Mong Tran Trang in the Dispute Notice and she requested a correction. Mr Rooter agreed to the name change, but the CRT inadvertently failed to amend the Dispute Notice. I find the properly named respondent is Mong Trang Tran, and I have amended the style of cause above accordingly.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    What price did the parties agree on for Mr Rooter’s plumbing work, and what do the respondents owe Mr Rooter for the work?

b.    Is Mr Rooter entitled to some or all of the claimed $200 in collection costs?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   As the applicant in this civil dispute, Mr Rooter must prove its claims 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.

12.   Mr Rooter says Mr. Duong signed a work authorization and contract to pump out his sump using a pumper truck, and Mr Rooter provided those services. Those services are the basis of its July 27, 2020 invoice for $812.70. The invoice identifies a $24 truck charge and a $750 charge for resetting a stuck sump pump, plus tax, totaling $812.70.

13.   Mr. Duong says he and Mr Rooter agreed by phone that the plumbing service would cost $400. Mr. Duong says he asked Mr Rooter to give a quote before “doing anything to the house.”

14.   I infer that Mr. Duong experienced a sump pump problem and there was some water to be cleaned up and possibly minor damage to be repaired, although details are sparse. I say this because Mr. Dong argues that Mr Rooter proceeded with restoration work without authorization. It is not clear how that restoration work relates to the claim for payment of the July 27, 2020 invoice, which does not mention any restoration work.

15.   Mr. Duong and a Mr Rooter employee exchanged text messages between July 27 and July 31. I summarize the relevant messages as follows:

a.    On July 29, 2020, Mr. Duong expressed concern about his insurance premiums increasing if he made an insurance claim.

b.    On July 31, 2020, Mr Rooter said the best deal it could give Mr. Duong if he did not go through insurance is $1,000 for “both plumbing and restoration.” Mr. Duong said he was told the plumbing work would cost $300-400, and he did not agree on the restoration work.

c.    Mr Rooter suggested they settle the plumbing bill and discuss the cleanup or restoration bill later. Mr Rooter said it would prepare a plumbing invoice for $400 plus GST, but Mr. Duong would also have to pay the restoration bill. Mr. Duong insisted he would not pay for restoration, and Mr Rooter concluded the conversation with “see you in court.”

Plumbing work price

16.   Mong Trang Tran was not a party to the alleged contract, and the invoice is billed to “Henry”, presumably referring to Mr. Duong. Mr Rooter did not identify any other basis for its claim against Mong Trang Tran, so I dismiss the claim against her.

17.   There is no claim for restoration work before me, only a claim for payment of an invoice for sump pump work, which I find is the plumbing work the parties referred to in their texts. So, I find the question is whether the invoice is consistent with the parties’ agreement about the plumbing work.

18.   The July 27, 2020 invoice includes 2 similar but not identical signatures allegedly belonging to Mr. Duong. Under each signature is the date, July 27, 2020. Mr. Duong does not dispute that they are his signatures, but says he only signed once to authorize Mr Rooter’s crew to come into his house and do 1 hour of plumbing work.

19.   Mr Rooter says the first signature is for “the work authorization based on the estimate provided in the invoice.” It says the second signature is for “work completed, and forms the basis of the contract.” It says both documents are produced on an iPad on that Mr. Duong signed.

20.   I reject Mr Rooter’s explanation of the invoice and the signatures, as it is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. First, when Mr. Duong texted that Mr Rooter quoted $300-400, Mr Rooter did not dispute this or refer to the estimate or the invoice Mr. Duong had allegedly already signed for $812.70. Instead, Mr Rooter said Mr. Duong signed a contract for restoration and provided a photo of what appears to be Mr. Duong’s signature on a different contract. The photo shows that Mr. Duong agreed that he would pay “BC Preferred Restoration” for its work, even if he reconsidered going through the insurance process to cover the work. Mr Rooter does not explain its relationship with BC Preferred Restoration, or provide a complete copy of that contract, or explain how it relates to the July 27, 2020 invoice.

21.   Second, Mr Rooter then explicitly agreed to charge Mr. Duong $400 for the plumbing work and address the restoration work separately.

22.   I find these 2 actions are consistent with Mr. Duong’s submission that he and Mr Rooter verbally agreed on a $400 price before the plumbing work began.

23.   As the applicant, Mr Rooter bears the burden of proving it is entitled to the amounts claimed. I find it has not met that burden. Mr Rooter does not claim any amounts for clean up or restoration work outside of the plumbing contract, and in any event did not provide any evidence of the work involved or how long it took. I find Mr Rooter is entitled to the agreed upon $400 charge for the plumbing work, plus GST, totaling $420.

Collections costs

24.   Mr Rooter claims $200 in collections costs for its employees’ efforts sending letters, calling and attending Mr. Duong’s home.

25.   Although Mr. Duong did not pay Mr Rooter anything, I find Mr. Duong’s texts demonstrate his willingness to pay $400 for Mr Rooter’s plumbing service as agreed. I find Mr Rooter cannot recover expenses associated with its attempts to collect amounts it has not established are owing. As well, I find Mr Rooter has not provided sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proving it incurred any collections costs. I dismiss this claim.

26.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Mr Rooter is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $420 from the invoice date of July 27, 2020, to the date of this decision. This equals $1.54.

27.   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. Mr Rooter was only partially successful and only recovered what Mr. Duong always said he was willing to pay. That said, there is no evidence that Mr. Duong attempted to pay what he thought was owed, such as by sending Mr Rooter a cheque. In the circumstances, I order Mr. Duong to reimburse Mr Rooter half its $125 in CRT fees, or $62.50. Mr Rooter did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

28.   Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order Mr. Duong to pay Mr Rooter a total of $484.04, broken down as follows:

a.    $420.00 for the plumbing work,

b.    $1.54 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $62.50 in CRT fees.

29.   Mr Rooter is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

30.   I dismiss the claims against Mong Trang Tran.

31.   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.

32.   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.