Date Issued: December 2, 2022

File: SC-2022-002355

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bilodeau v. Palleson, 2022 BCCRT 1300

Between:

ISRAEL BILODEAU

Applicant

And:

LISA PALLESON

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Eric Regehr

INTRODUCTION

1.      Lisa Palleson hired Israel Bilodeau to do carpentry work in her condo. Dr. Palleson has undisputedly never paid Mr. Bilodeau’s $3,988 final invoice. He claims that amount. Mr. Bilodeau represents himself.

2.      Dr. Palleson says that Mr. Bilodeau overcharged her and made “major mistakes” that she had to hire other contractors to fix. She asks me to dismiss Mr. Bilodeau’s claim. She is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      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.

4.     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 of this dispute call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other. 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 Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, 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.

5.      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.

6.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to pay money or to do or stop doing something. The CRT’s order may include any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUES

7.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did Mr. Bilodeau overcharge Dr. Palleson for labour or materials, and if so, by how much?

b.    Were there deficiencies in Mr. Bilodeau’s work?

c.    How much, if anything, does Dr. Palleson owe Mr. Bilodeau?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      In a civil claim such as this, Mr. Bilodeau as the applicant must prove his case on a balance of probabilities. While I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

9.      The following facts are undisputed. Dr. Palleson hired Mr. Bilodeau to do repairs in her condo. The parties did not have a written contract, but they verbally agreed that Dr. Palleson would pay Mr. Bilodeau $50 per hour plus materials. She paid a $2,500 deposit on December 29, 2021. She also made a $3,000 payment on January 29, 2022.

10.   This dispute is about Mr. Bilodeau’s final invoice, which is dated February 11, 2022. The invoice is for $3,293 in materials, $5,900 in labour, and $295 for GST on the labour. After accounting for the $2,500 and $3,000 payment, the balance owing was $3,988, the amount Mr. Bilodeau claims in this dispute. The labour is broken down into daily entries between December 14, 2021, and February 11, 2022. As discussed in more detail below, Dr. Palleson says that Mr. Bilodeau gave her multiple versions of his final invoice in the weeks following February 11, 2022, even though the date on the invoice never changed.

11.   Dr. Palleson disputes both the labour and materials charges in the invoice. I will start with the materials portion. Dr. Palleson’s first argument is that Mr. Bilodeau charged her twice for the same $623.94 invoice. She provided a copy of the invoice. Mr. Bilodeau’s invoice does not break down the material charges, so it is impossible to tell from his invoice whether he double charged Dr. Palleson for these materials. Mr. Bilodeau does not respond to this allegation in his reply submissions. In the absence of an explanation from Mr. Bilodeau, I accept Dr. Palleson’s evidence on this point. I find that I must deduct this $623.94 from his invoice.

12.   Dr. Palleson also argues that some of the materials Mr. Bilodeau charged her for were not for her project, such as pine walnut stain and lime green paint. She says that 2 of the invoices Mr. Bilodeau charged her for, one for $89.94 and the other for $358.92, were not for her home. She argues that Mr. Bilodeau included these invoices by mistake and that they were probably for another job. Mr. Bilodeau denies that he was working and on other jobs at the time. I find it implied by this submission that Mr. Bilodeau maintains that the materials he charged for were all used on Dr. Palleson’s project.

13.   Dr. Palleson did not include these 2 invoices. Instead, she provided 2 other materials invoices. One is for $24.17, and it is not itemized. The other is for $420.61, and it is for an exterior door lock, wall brackets, and associated hardware. Dr. Palleson does not explain why she included these invoices, or why she did not include the invoices that she says Mr. Bilodeau wrongly charged her for. She does not say that these invoices were for materials that Mr. Bilodeau did not use on her project.

14.   In the absence of the disputed invoices, I find that Dr. Palleson has not proven that Mr. Bilodeau charged her for materials that he did not use on her project. She does not otherwise dispute his materials charges. I note that in a March 28, 2022 email, Dr. Palleson accepted Mr. Bilodeau’s materials charges, which supports Mr. Bilodeau’s claim. On balance, I find that she must pay the materials charges subject to the $623.94 deduction discussed above.

15.   The larger dispute is over Mr. Bilodeau’s hours. Dr. Palleson’s evidence and submissions focus on what happened after Mr. Bilodeau finished the job on February 11, 2022.

16.   In particular, Dr. Palleson relies on emails between the parties on March 28, 2022. Dr. Palleson first asked Mr. Bilodeau to “specify at the bottom of the invoice” that she owed $3,293 for materials, $400 for labour, and a $2,500 deposit. Mr. Bilodeau responded “yes” and repeated the same figures.

17.   Dr. Palleson says that after these emails, Mr. Bilodeau realized he had forgotten to account for the $2,500 deposit, so he issued a new invoice (the invoice he relies on in this dispute). As noted above, the invoice charged $5,900 in labour, up from the $400 set out in the email. Dr. Palleson argues that Mr. Bilodeau inflated his invoice after he realized this error about the deposit.

18.   I find that Mr. Bilodeau did not “increase” the invoice after these emails, as Dr. Palleson alleges. Rather, I find that the $400 likely referred to the amount still owing for labour after accounting for Dr. Palleson’s 2 payments. I say this because she paid $5,500, which is the difference between $400 and $5,900. Also, Dr. Palleson says that Mr. Bilodeau’s email with $400 in labour also included $295 in GST, which is the amount of GST for $5,900 of labour.

19.   Dr. Palleson also relies on an email Mr. Bilodeau sent on March 30, 2022, where he said that he had changed the invoice. He said that Dr. Palleson should take a screenshot of the “simple invoice” and then he would change it back. He later clarified that he did a “simple” and a “breakdown” version of the invoice. Mr. Bilodeau says that he gave Dr. Palleson different invoices because she told him her insurance company had specific requirements. I find that Mr. Bilodeau’s emails clearly indicate that he was changing the format of the invoices, not the amounts.

20.   Dr. Palleson alleges other discrepancies between different versions of Mr. Bilodeau’s invoices over time. Dr. Palleson says in submissions that in the “original” invoice, there were 4 days in February totaling 18.75 hours. In the February 11 invoice in evidence, Mr. Bilodeau charged for 24.25 hours. However, Dr. Palleson did not provide a copy of this “original” invoice. The only invoice in evidence is the February 11 invoice. I find that Dr. Palleson has not proven that Mr. Bilodeau retroactively changed his invoice to inflate his hours.

21.   Dr. Palleson also argues that Mr. Bilodeau never worked before 9:30 or after 2:30. Some of his time entries start as early as 8:00am and some go as late as 4:30pm. So, she argues that Mr. Bilodeau charged for time he was not working on her project. Mr. Bilodeau says that he never showed up before 9:00am, but he sometimes had to stop at stores on the way, which he charged for. I find that this is a reasonable explanation for the entries that start before 9:00am. He does not specifically respond to the allegation that he never stayed past 2:30pm, but I find from his other submissions that he stands behind the hours he charged for.

22.   Dr. Palleson says that she has a calendar that proves what hours he was present in her condo. However, she did not provide a copy of this calendar. When a party fails to provide relevant evidence, the CRT may make an adverse inference. An adverse inference is when the CRT assumes that the reason a party did not provide evidence is that it would not help their case, or does not exist. I find that a calendar showing the exact hours Mr. Bilodeau worked in Dr. Palleson’s condo is clearly relevant. She did not explain why she did not provide a copy of this calendar. I find that an adverse inference is appropriate. Overall, I find that Dr. Palleson has not proven that Mr. Bilodeau did not work the hours in the invoice.

23.   Finally, Dr. Palleson says that the invoice should be reduced because she had to pay someone else to fix deficiencies in Mr. Bilodeau’s work and had to hire cleaners after he left. When a party alleges that a professional’s work was below a reasonably competent standard, they must prove the deficiencies. See Absolute Industries Ltd. v. Harris, 2014 BCSC 287, at paragraph 61.

24.   Here, Dr. Palleson says nothing about what errors Mr. Bilodeau allegedly made, who she hired to fix them, or how much it cost. She also says nothing about what mess he allegedly left behind, who she hired to clean up, or how much it cost. I find that she has not proven any deficiencies in Mr. Bilodeau’s work.

25.   I therefore find that Mr. Bilodeau’s invoice must be reduced by $623.94 for materials, leaving a balance owing of $3,364.06. I order Dr. Palleson to pay this amount.

26.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. However, Mr. Bilodeau waived his right to claim interest, so I award none.

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. Bilodeau was substantially successful, so I that find he is entitled to reimbursement of his $175 in CRT fees. He did not claim any dispute-related expenses. I note here that Mr. Bilodeau also included a $1 claim for CRT fees as a separate claim in the Dispute Notice, which I dismiss because it is redundant.

ORDERS

28.  Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order Dr. Palleson to pay Mr. Bilodeau a total of $3,539.06, broken down as follows:

a.    $3,364.06 in debt, and

b.    $175 in CRT fees.

29.  I dismiss Mr. Bilodeau’s remaining claims.

30.  Mr. Bilodeau is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

31.  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. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.