Date Issued: April 6, 2023

File: SC-2022-004519

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: H.Y. Engineering Ltd. v. Camellia Residence Inc., 2023 BCCRT 288

Between:

H.Y. ENGINEERING LTD.

Applicant

And:

CAMELLIA RESIDENCE INC. and CHARLES CANTOS

RespondentS

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Leah Volkers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about engineering services.

2.      The applicant, H.Y. Engineering Ltd. (HY), says the respondents, Camellia Residence Inc. (Camellia) and Charles Cantos, hired HY to provide professional civil engineering services, but have failed to pay for some of HY’s services. HY claims a total of $1,795.50 for 3 unpaid invoices.

3.      Camellia and Mr. Cantos dispute HY’s claims. Although they do not specifically dispute HY’s 3 unpaid invoices, they say HY included unnecessary charges on other invoices. They also say HY withheld information from the city that should have been communicated to Camellia, which they say cost Camellia significant monetary damage. Neither Camellia nor Mr. Cantos filed counterclaims.

4.      HY is represented by its principal. Mr. Cantos represents both himself and Camellia.

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.      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. 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 in the interests of justice.

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.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether Camellia or Mr. Cantos are responsible to pay HY $1,795.50 for engineering services.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant, HY must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not). I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

11.   It is undisputed that Camellia hired HY to provide engineering services for a senior’s centre development. A signed September 15, 2017 agreement is in evidence. The agreement is addressed to “ATL Senior Living”, which I infer is Camellia’s business name. Camellia’s BC corporate registry summary confirms that Camellia’s previous company name was 1058247 B.C. Ltd, and Mr. Cantos is listed as the CEO and president. He is also listed as a director. Mr. Cantos signed the agreement as “president”, and listed 1058247 BC Ltd. as the “billing name”. So, I find Mr. Cantos signed the agreement on behalf of Camellia. I find that Camellia agreed to pay HY for its services based on the signed agreement in evidence.

12.   As noted, HY claims payment of 3 invoices that collectively total $1,795.50, as follows:

a.    January 31, 2022 invoice - $567.00 for construction coordination services,

b.    March 31, 2022 invoice - $519.75 for construction coordination services and contract administration services, and

c.    April 30, 2022 invoice - $708.75 for construction coordination services.

13.   At the outset, I find HY has not shown that Mr. Cantos is personally responsible to pay any of these invoices. All 3 invoices are addressed to Camellia. Although Mr. Cantos is a Camellia director and officer, I have found that he was not a party to the agreement in his personal capacity. An officer or a director is generally not personally liable for a corporation’s debts. See Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Insurance Co., 1987 CanLII 75 (SCC). Neither are officers, directors or employees personally liable when acting on a company’s behalf, unless they committed a wrongful act independent of the company. See Merit Consultants International Ltd. v. Chandler, 2014 BCCA 121.The evidence does not show that Mr. Cantos committed any wrongful act here. Therefore, I dismiss HY’s claim against Mr. Cantos personally.

14.   Camellia alleges that HY’s billed amounts for the project as a whole are much higher than the budgeted amount, and says Camellia included unnecessary charges on other invoices. However, Camellia did not specifically dispute any of the charges in the 3 invoices at issue in this dispute.

15.   I find the agreement’s terms required Camellia to pay for the construction coordination services HY performed on an hourly basis. I find a June 6, 2018 email from Mr. Cantos to HY shows that Camellia also agreed to pay HY for contract administration services on an hourly basis. None of this is disputed.

16.   HY submitted various documents and correspondence to support the work billed for in its 3 claimed invoices. I reviewed these documents, and the parties’ correspondence in evidence, and compared this work to the agreement and the invoices. I find HY’s January 31, 2022 invoice for $567.00 for construction coordination services, March 31, 2022 invoice for $519.75 for construction coordination services and contract administration services, and April 30, 2022 invoice for $708.75 for construction coordination services are supported by the documents in evidence showing HY’s underlying work. I am satisfied on these documents that HY performed the agreed services and is entitled to be paid for its work.

17.   HY provided 3 documents that provide a listing of the hours and hourly rates charged by HY for each invoice. I note that the hourly rate charged for a professional engineer on the invoices from 2022 that are at issue in this dispute ($180) is higher than the hourly rate listed in the 2017 agreement ($150). However, the agreement specifically says that the rates are subject to change, and Camellia did not dispute the higher hourly rate charged in 2022. So, I make no reduction on that basis.

18.   I find that HY has established on a balance of probabilities that Camellia owes HY a total of $1,795.50 for unpaid engineering services, subject to any proven set-off.

19.   In its Dispute Response and submissions, Camellia alleged that HY included unnecessary charges on an August 31, 2021 invoice and an October 31, 2021 invoice. It is undisputed that Camellia paid both invoices. Camellia did not file a counterclaim, so I infer Camellia argues it should be entitled to set off on any amount owing to HY on this basis. However, Camellia did not submit either invoice in evidence. So, I find these disputed charges unproven, and I find Camellia is not entitled to any set off for them.

20.   Camellia also alleges that HY withheld information from the city which resulted in Camellia missing a time period to remove knotweed from the development site. Camellia says it suffered significant monetary losses as a result, so I infer it seeks a set-off for this alleged delay. Based on the emails between HY and Camellia, I infer the missed time period to remove knotweed was in 2021. HY says that it mistakenly forgot to forward correspondence from the city to Camellia, but says the city back dated the “one year maintenance period” to July 6, 2021 in any event. Camellia did not explain or provide evidence that shows it suffered any loss as a result of HY’s delay in forwarding city correspondence to Camellia. So, I find Camellia is not entitled to any set off on that basis.

21.   In summary, I find Camellia owes HY a total of $1,795.50 for unpaid engineering services.

Interest, CRT fees and expenses

22.   Under the terms of the agreement, HY and Camellia agreed to an annual interest rate of 12%. In the Dispute Notice, HY claims interest on the $1,795.50 debt from May 1, 2022. However, the agreement says contractual interest is charged on unpaid invoices after 30 days. As noted, HY claims for 3 unpaid invoices. So, I find that HY is entitled to 12% contractual interest as follows:

a.    For the January 31, 2022 invoice, interest on $567.00 from May 1, 2022 to the date of this decision, this equals $63.57,

b.    For the March 31, 2022 invoice, interest on $519.75 from May 1, 2022 to the date of this decision, this equals $58.27, and

c.    For the April 30, 2022 invoice: interest on $708.75 from May 30, 2022 to the date of this decision, this equals $72.70.

23.   Collectively, I find that HY is entitled to contractual interest totaling $194.54.

24.   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. As HY was successful in this dispute, I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in paid CRT fees.

25.   HY also claims $8.50 for a title search and $11.82 for a corporate search as dispute-related expenses. HY provided receipts that support these claimed expenses, although I note the corporate search receipt indicates the charge was for $11.91 including GST, not $11.82. I find both these claimed expenses are reasonable dispute-related expenses. So, I find HY is entitled to reimbursement of $20.32 in dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

26.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order Camellia to pay HY a total of $2,135.36, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,795.50 in debt,

b.    $194.54 in contractual interest at 12% annually,

c.    $125 in CRT fees, and

d.    $20.32 for dispute-related expenses.

27.   HY is also entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

28.   I dismiss HY’s claims against Mr. Cantos.

29.   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.