Date Issued: October 28, 2021

File: SC-2021-003794

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Grant v. Bluebird Cabs, Ltd., 2021 BCCRT 1144

Between:

DEVON GRANT

Applicant

And:

BLUEBIRD CABS, LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Devon Grant, says the respondent, Bluebird Cabs, Ltd. (Bluebird), hired him to redesign its website. Mr. Grant claims payment of his $2,653.87 invoice, which remains unpaid.

2.      Bluebird says it did not approve Mr. Grant’s invoiced work, and that Bluebird’s former general manager HS was only in negotiations with Mr. Grant to update Bluebird’s COVID-19 protocol on its website. Bluebird says Mr. Grant’s quote expired and “was not finalized”.

3.      Mr. Grant is self-represented and Bluebird is represented by its general manager, MW.

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). 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 parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find I can fairly hear this dispute based on the submitted evidence and through written submissions.

6.      Under CRTA section 42, 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 CRTA section 118, in resolving this dispute the CRT may: order a party to do or stop doing something, order a party to pay money, or order any other terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUES

8.      The issues are whether Bluebird requested and approved Mr. Grant’s website redesign work, and if so, to what extent is he entitled to payment of his $2,653.87 invoice.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim like this one, as the applicant Mr. Grant has the burden of proving his claim, on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have only referenced below what I find is necessary to give context to my decision.

10.   As noted above, Bluebird says HS was only in negotiations with Mr. Grant to update Bluebird’s website with respect to COVID-19 protocols. Bluebird says Mr. Grant’s email containing his quote shows the quote expired and “it was not finalized”. For the reasons that follow, I do not accept Bluebird’s position.

11.   In contrast, Mr. Grant says Bluebird’s former general manager HS agreed to Mr. Grant’s initial price quote and that he received “email verification” from HS that the project had been approved.

12.   Mr. Grant says that when he completed the project, HS was ready to pay the invoice and was happy with his work. Mr. Grant says HS told him he forwarded the invoice to Bluebird’s accounting department for payment, but that the invoice was never paid. As discussed below, I find the evidence clearly supports Mr. Grant’s position.

13.   Bluebird argues that its Board did not approve the work, which I find inconsistent with HS’ emails detailed below. I find there is no evidence that HS did not have authority as Bluebird’s agent to bind Bluebird in a contract with Mr. Grant and Bluebird does not expressly argue otherwise. I find HS was Bluebird’s authorized agent.

14.   I also note Bluebird alleges Mr. Grant gave it “fake notice” of this CRT dispute because Mr. Grant apparently attempted to begin a proceeding in the BC Provincial Court (BCPC). I infer the BCPC declined to accept the dispute, given the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction over disputes $5,000 and under. In any event, I find nothing turns on this since Mr. Grant clearly filed a separate application to the CRT in May 2021 and Bluebird filed the required Dispute Response and participated in this proceeding.

15.   I turn to the relevant chronology.

16.   In Mr. Grant’s September 28, 2020 quote, he set out a $3,205.12 total price, covering website redesign ($2,527.50 + GST) and “videography and photography” ($525 + GST). The quote said it expired on August 20, 2021. It noted website hosting would be billed separately at $15 monthly.

17.   Contrary to Bluebird’s assertion, I find the quote’s expiry date does not mean that Mr. Grant cannot rely on the quote if he did work that Bluebird requested. In any event, Mr. Grant completed the work and started this CRT proceeding before that August 20, 2021 expiry date. I find nothing turns on the quote’s expiry date.

18.   In HS’ December 15, 2020 email to Mr. Grant, HS wrote that Bluebird’s Board had considered the proposal and that “we do want to go ahead with it” in January 2021, and “we will go with the package minus the drone coverage”, which I find likely refers to the videography aspect of the quote. I find this was clear confirmation that the parties had a contract, based on the quote minus the drone coverage.

19.   On January 7, 2021, Mr. Grant emailed HS, and set out his plan for the redesign, and asked HS some questions about various details for the website. On January 25, 2021, HS responded that “it looks really good so far!”. Given this, I do not accept Bluebird’s assertion that the project was limited to COVID-19 protocol information. I note there is no suggestion, and no evidence, that Mr. Grant’s work product was in any way deficient or outside the scope authorized by HS.

20.   Then, on February 18, 2021, HS emailed Mr. Grant that he was sorry but that Bluebird’s Board “has decided to not move forward with you hosting the website for them moving forward”. HS asked Mr. Grant to prepare his bill along with the website “keys”.

21.   Later on February 18, 2021, Mr. Grant issued his invoice for the claimed $2,653.87, the amount claimed in this dispute. It noted payment was due within 30 days. The invoice billed $0 for “photography and videography”, consistent with Mr. Grant’s quote and HS’ instruction in his December 15, 2020 email.

22.   In summary, I find Bluebird’s authorized agent, its then-general manager HS, clearly authorized Mr. Grant to do the invoiced work. I find Bluebird is responsible to pay Mr. Grant’s invoice. I find Mr. Grant is entitled to the claimed $2,653.87.

23.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Mr. Grant is entitled to pre-judgment interest under the COIA on the $2,653.87. Calculated from the March 20, 2021 invoice due date (30 days after February 18, 2021 invoice date) to the date of this decision, this equals $7.28.

24.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. However, Mr. Grant did not pay CRT fees and no dispute-related expenses were claimed. So, I make no order for fees or expenses.

ORDERS

25.   Within 21 days of this decision, I order Bluebird to pay Mr. Grant a total of $2,661.15, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,653.87 in debt, and

b.    $7.28 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA

26.   Mr. Grant 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.

28.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of BC. 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 BC.