Date Issued: June 24, 2022

File: SC-2021-009102

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Garceau-Giroux (dba Okanagan Painting Crew) v. TKI Construction Ltd., 2022 BCCRT 740

BETWEEN:

GABRIEL GARCEAU-GIROUX (Doing Business As OKANAGAN PAINTING CREW)

 

APPLICANT

AND:

TKI CONSTRUCTION LTD. and HRISTOS PANOPOULOS

 

RESPONDENTS

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrea Ritchie, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about unpaid painting work. The applicant, Gabriel Garceau-Giroux (dba Okanagan Painting Crew), says he was hired by the respondent company, TKI Construction Ltd. (TKI), to perform interior and exterior painting work on a home owned by the respondent, Hristos Panopoulos (also known as Brandon Panopoulos). TKI is Mr. Panopoulos’s business. Mr. Garceau-Giroux says the respondents have failed to pay him for work done, and seeks $5,000 in compensation.

2.      The respondents say Mr. Garceau-Giroux’s work was not completed to a professional standard and needs extensive repair. They deny owing Mr. Garceau-Giroux any money.

3.      Mr. Garceau-Giroux represents himself. Mr. Panopoulos represents both respondents.

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 parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution 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, 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.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says that 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.      As set out in section 118 of the CRTA and prescribed by regulation, the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction is limited to claims for relief up to $5,000. The CRT may resolve small claims over debt or damages, recovery of personal property, specific performance of an agreement relating to personal property or services, and relief from opposing claims to personal property.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is to what extent, if any, Mr. Garceau-Giroux is entitled to $5,000 for painting work.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Mr. Garceau-Giroux must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only addressed those necessary to explain my decision.

10.   Mr. Garceau-Giroux did not provide any evidence. In his submissions Mr. Garceau-Giroux advised he missed the deadline to submit evidence as it was a “really busy time of year”. There is no indication Mr. Garceau-Giroux asked CRT staff for an extension of time to submit any evidence late. Mr. Garceau-Giroux advised he had 2 invoices and a text message conversation to submit, as well as a statement from his partner describing difficulties they had working with Mr. Panopoulos. Given the parties do not dispute the contract’s amount or the outstanding balance, I find the invoices are unnecessary. Mr. Panopoulos submitted copies of the parties’ text messages, so I find that evidence is also unnecessary. As for the statement, I find the heart of the parties’ issue is whether the work was completed to a professional standard, so I find the statement as described by Mr. Garceau-Giroux is not relevant. Therefore, I find I do not need to admit any late evidence.

11.   The respondents hired Mr. Garceau-Giroux to paint the interior and exterior of Mr. Panopoulos’ home. There is no written contract in evidence, but the parties’ text messages indicate the initial quote was for $14,780 plus GST. The respondents submit there were 2 amendments to the scope of work, bringing the total project cost to $21,080 plus GST. Mr. Panopoulos says he has paid $13,986 plus GST, leaving an outstanding balance of $7,100 plus GST. None of this is disputed.

12.   Mr. Garceau-Giroux says that the respondents are improperly withholding payment for the exterior portion of the home due to alleged deficiencies in the interior. Mr. Garceau-Giroux says the project was actually 2 separate contracts, and that $5,000 is owing on the exterior portion (what is claimed in this dispute), and $2,100 is owing on the interior portion. However, in his Dispute Notice Mr. Garceau-Giroux stated that he “walked out” on the $2,100 and is not asking for it back.

13.   The respondents say it was one contract with one price for the entire project, including interior and exterior.

14.   Here, I find the parties’ text messages are consistent with the respondents’ position that the project was one contract. There is simply no evidence in support of Mr. Garceau-Giroux’s submission that the exterior and interior were separate contracts. Mr. Garceau-Giroux quoted Mr. Panopoulos one amount for the entire project, which was subsequently increased. So, given Mr. Garceau-Giroux advised he was not seeking the extra $2,100, I find Mr. Garceau-Giroux abandoned his claim to any amount over $5,000, which is the CRT’s small claims monetary limit.

15.   Turning to the merits of Mr. Garceau-Giroux’s claim, it is undisputed that he completed the work, but the respondents allege numerous deficiencies. So, I find Mr. Garceau-Giroux is entitled to payment of the outstanding $5,000, subject to any deduction for proven deficiencies.

16.   When a customer alleges that a contractor’s work was below a reasonably competent standard, the customer (here, the respondents) must prove the deficiencies (see: Absolute Industries Ltd. v. Harris, 2014 BCSC 287 at paragraph 61). Generally, expert evidence is required to prove a professional’s work was below a reasonable standard (see: Bergen v. Guliker, 2015 BCCA 283). The two exceptions to this rule are when the deficiency is not technical in nature, or where the work is obviously substandard (see: Schellenberg v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 BCSC 196 at paragraph 112).

17.   Mr. Panopoulos submitted hundreds of pages of photographs which he says show extensive deficiencies throughout the home. There is no allegation there are any deficiencies with the home’s exterior painting.

18.   The photos show wall paint on the ceilings, windows and window frames, and the hardwood floors. The photos also show jagged paint lines instead of straight lines, particularly where two walls meet and are different colours. I accept these are obvious deficiencies.

19.   On their own, the deficiencies are relatively minor. However, I find the minor deficiencies are very numerous and extend throughout the entire home. I find the totality of the minor deficiencies is significant.

20.   Mr. Panopoulos submitted 2 quotes from other painting contractors for remedying Mr. Garceau-Giroux’s deficiencies, one for $8,190 plus GST and one for $6,300 plus materials, 15% mark-up, and GST. I find the cost to fix the proven deficiencies exceeds the amount Mr. Garceau-Giroux claims in this dispute. So, I find Mr. Garceau-Giroux is not entitled to any of the $5,000 claimed. I dismiss Mr. Garceau-Giroux’s claims.

21.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. I see no reason to deviate from that general rule. As Mr. Garceau-Giroux was not successful, I find that he is not entitled to reimbursement of his paid tribunal fees. The respondents did not pay tribunal fees or claim any dispute-related expenses.

 

ORDER

22.   I dismiss Mr. Garceau-Giroux’s claims and this dispute.