Date Issued: January 5, 2022

File: SC-2021-005244

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: 2 Burley Men Moving Ltd. v. Blunderfield, 2022 BCCRT 8

Between:

2 BURLEY MEN MOVING LTD.

Applicant

And:

FRAYCEANE BLUNDERFIELD

Respondent

And:

2 BURLEY MEN MOVING LTD.

Respondent BY COUNTERCLAIM

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kristin Gardner

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about residential moving services. The respondent and applicant by counterclaim, Frayceane Blunderfield, hired the applicant and respondent by counterclaim, 2 Burley Men Moving Ltd. (Burley), to move her personal belongings between 2 cities in BC. Burley says Mrs. Blunderfield only paid $1,000 towards its invoice. Burley claims payment of $619.75, for the outstanding portion of its invoice.

2.      Mrs. Blunderfield says Burley quoted her $700 plus tax for the move. She says when Burley gave her its $1,619.75 bill on the moving day, she disputed the amount over the $700 quote but ultimately offered to pay $1,000 including tax, which she says Burley accepted.

3.      Mrs. Blunderfield says she now wants to be reimbursed the $300 she paid above the initial quote Burley provided. She also says Burley’s movers were not properly equipped and used her materials to complete the move. Mrs. Blunderfield counterclaims $625 for the amount over the quote, use of her belongings, and cleaning up garbage left behind.

4.      Burley says it gave Mrs. Blunderfield an estimate for the move, not a quote. It says when Mrs. Blunderfield agreed to pay $1,000, they accepted it as a partial payment but did not intend it to be a final settlement. Burley says it is willing to reimburse Mrs. Blunderfield $6 for 3 rolls of tape it used, but otherwise denies Mrs. Blunderfield’s counterclaim.

5.      Burley is represented by an employee. Mrs. Blunderfield is represented by her daughter, Lorna Swan, who holds Mrs. Blunderfield’s enduring power of attorney.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6.      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.

7.      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. In some respects, both parties to this dispute call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other. The credibility of interested 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. The assessment of what is the most likely account depends on its harmony with the rest of the evidence. In the circumstances of this dispute, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the evidence and submissions before me. I note the decision in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282 at paragraphs 32 to 28, in which the court recognized that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is in issue. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

8.      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.

9.      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.

10.   Mrs. Blunderfield says in the Dispute Notice for her counterclaim that the Burley movers damaged some of her belongings during the move. She also provided a description and photos of the alleged damage in evidence. However, she did not request any specific remedy in either her response to Burley’s claim or her counterclaim for the alleged property damage. She also says the alleged damage is not the reason she should not have to pay Burley’s invoice. In the absence of any requested remedy, I find it would be inappropriate to consider the alleged damage, and I make no findings about it in my reasons below.

ISSUES

11.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    To what extent, if any, does either party owe the other for the move?

b.    To what extent, if any, does Burley owe Mrs. Blunderfield for the use of her belongings?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Burley must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). Mrs. Blunderfield has the same burden to prove her counterclaims. I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions, but I refer only to what is necessary to explain my decision.

13.   It is undisputed that Ms. Swan contacted Burley on June 8, 2021 about moving Mrs. Blunderfield’s belongings on July 2, 2021. Mrs. Blunderfield provided handwritten notes I infer Ms. Swan made during her conversation with Burley. The notes say: “4 hrs, 2 man, $130 p/hr } $700.00 + tax”.

14.   Mrs. Blunderfield argues that the $700 plus tax amount Burley provided was a quote. However, as noted, Burley says this was just an estimate. Burley provided a copy of an appointment confirmation in evidence. While the parties agree Burley did not provide Mrs. Blunderfield with a copy of the confirmation before the move, Burley says the terms and conditions on the confirmation “are explained to the customer” during the telephone booking.

 

15.   The terms and conditions on the appointment confirmation are generally about coverage for damage, and there is also a section about the “move time”, which is about the start time booked. At the bottom of the confirmation is the appointment information. It stated Mrs. Blunderfield’s appointment was booked for 9am on July 2, 2021 with a 5-ton truck. The special instructions included: “2 men @ 130 hr”, 1.5 hours travel time, “50 fuel”, and “1 bedroom @ 750sqft”.

16.   I accept that Burley likely discussed the general information on the appointment confirmation with Ms. Swan during the booking. However, the confirmation did not quote a total cost or number of hours the move was anticipated to take. Mrs. Blunderfield says Burley asked Ms. Swan several questions about the move during the booking, including what type of furniture and appliances were involved, the square footage of the apartment, and whether there were any elevators. Burley does not deny it asked for this information, so I find it likely did so when discussing the cost of the move with Ms. Swan.

17.   Given both Burley’s appointment confirmation and Ms. Swan’s notes of her conversation with Burley provided an hourly rate for 2 workers, on balance I find Burley provided Ms. Swan with a $700 plus tax estimate, based on about 4 hours to complete the move. In other words, I find the parties did not have a fixed-price contract, and the final amount would be based on the actual time taken to complete the move. I note that Burley does not particularly dispute that it estimated Mrs. Blunderfield’s move would take approximately 4 hours and cost about $700 plus tax.

18.   Despite Burley’s estimate, it is undisputed that it took Burley 10 hours to complete Mrs. Blunderfield’s move. Burley’s waybill in evidence shows it charged Mrs. Blunderfield $1,619.75 for 11.5 hours (including 1.5 hours travel time) at $130 per hour, plus tax and a $50 fuel fee.

19.   Mrs. Blunderfield argues that the move took so long because the Burley movers were inefficient and inexperienced. She says they arrived unprepared, without proper packing materials, dollies, or tools to disassemble furniture. She says they moved her furniture all out into the hallway first before then moving it down the elevator into the truck, essentially moving it all twice. She says they then did the same thing when unloading it at the destination. Mrs. Blunderfield also says one of the movers was regularly on his phone throughout the day. Burley did not particularly dispute any of these allegations. Burley also did not provide any contrary statements from the movers or explain why the move took so much longer than the estimated 4 hours.

20.   However, I find I do not have to determine whether Burley’s $1,619.75 invoice was reasonable because, for the following reasons, I find the parties came to a binding agreement to settle the invoice.

21.   It is undisputed that when Burley gave Mrs. Blunderfield and Ms. Swan its waybill at the end of the move, they refused to pay it. Mrs. Blunderfield says Ms. Swan spoke over speaker phone with a Burley employee and advised they would pay no more than $1,000 total. She says the Burley employee confirmed that she was agreeing to pay $1,000, and he took her payment by credit card over the phone. The Burley waybill shows a note stating “1,000 paid” next to the total due, with Ms. Swan’s initials.

22.   Burley says it agreed to the $1,000 as a “partial payment” and that the parties would discuss the outstanding balance the following day. Mrs. Blunderfield denies there was any mention of discussing an outstanding balance the next day. Burley did not provide a statement from its employee about the agreement to accept the $1,000 payment or any evidence about its attempts to collect the alleged outstanding amount. Mrs. Blunderfield says she thought the bill had been settled until she received this CRT dispute. On balance, I accept Mrs. Blunderfield’s evidence that Burley did not express it was accepting the $1,000 as only a “partial payment”.

23.   The question of whether the parties had a binding settlement is determined according to the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation (see Roumanis v. Hill, 2013 BCSC 1047). Here, I find all the elements necessary to create a binding contract are present (offer, acceptance, and consideration).

 

24.   I find Ms. Swan made Burley a clear and unambiguous offer to settle its bill for $1,000 and that Burley knew Ms. Swan intended the offer to be a final settlement. I find Burley accepted her offer when it confirmed what she was willing to pay and took her $1,000 payment over the phone. I find it is unlikely Ms. Swan would have paid Burley the $1,000, had she thought she may have to pay more later. Given Burley accepted Ms. Swan’s offer to finally settle its bill for $1,000, I find it cannot later claim an outstanding unpaid balance. Therefore, I dismiss Burley’s claim for $619.75.

25.   For the same reasons, I also dismiss Mrs. Blunderfield’s counterclaim as it relates to a refund for the amount she paid over Burley’s estimate. I find she agreed to pay more and cannot now request a refund.

26.   Turning to Mrs. Blunderfield’s counterclaim for use of her tools and other belongings, Burley does not dispute using 3 rolls of Mrs. Blunderfield’s packing tape, which it values at $6. Mrs. Blunderfield did not dispute this valuation, so I accept it.

27.   Mrs. Blunderfield also claims an unspecified amount as a fee for Burley’s workers’ use of her tools and tape guns for the move. Burley does not dispute that it used these items. I infer that Mrs. Blunderfield permitted Burley to use these belongings and there is no evidence that they were damaged or lost during the move. There is also no evidence that Burley agreed to pay a fee for their use. Under the circumstances, I find there is no basis to compensate Mrs. Blunderfield for Burley’s use of her belongings with permission, and I dismiss this aspect of her counterclaim.

28.   Finally, Mrs. Blunderfield says the movers left a mess for her to clean up. She provided photographs showing various piles of what appears to be tape and other packing materials on the floor. Burley does not particularly dispute leaving garbage behind, and I find that it did so. Mrs. Blunderfield did not provide any evidence about the cost to clean the mess Burley left. Given the lack of evidence, I find a nominal amount of $20 is appropriate compensation for cleaning the mess Burley left.

29.   In summary, I find Burley must pay Mrs. Blunderfield a total of $26 for tape and cleaning costs.

30.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Mrs. Blunderfield is entitled to pre-judgement interest on the $26 from July 2, 2021, the date of the move, to the date of this decision. This equals $0.06.

31.   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. Burley was unsuccessful and so I dismiss its claim for CRT fees. Mrs. Blunderfield was partially successful on her counterclaim, so I find she is entitled to reimbursement of $37.50 for half her CRT fees. Neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

32.   Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order Burley to pay Mrs. Blunderfield a total of $63.56, broken down as follows:

a.    $26 as reimbursement for tape and cleaning costs,

b.    $0.06 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $37.50 in CRT fees.

33.   Mrs. Blunderfield is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

34.   I dismiss Burley’s claims and the remainder of Mrs. Blunderfield’s counterclaims.

35.   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.

 

36.   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.