Date Issued: August 15, 2023

File: SC-2022-009860

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: AK Sandhar Glass Ltd. v. Panesar, 2023 BCCRT 685

Between:

AK SANDHAR GLASS LTD.

Applicant

And:

RANJIT PANESAR

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kristin Gardner

INTRODUCTION

1.      The respondent, Ranjit Panesar, hired the applicant, AK Sandhar Glass Ltd., to install various items, including railings, mirrors, and doors, in their new home construction. The applicant says it completed the agreed work, but that the respondent has not paid the final installment. The applicant claims $4,850 for the outstanding balance under the parties’ contract.

2.      The respondent admits that the applicant completed the work but says the work was deficient. I infer it is the respondent’s position that the amount to fix the applicant’s deficiencies is greater than the amount owed.

3.      The applicant is represented by its director, Jaspreet Sandhar. The respondent is self-represented.

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. The CRT must act fairly and follow the law. It must also recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Does the respondent owe the applicant $4,850 for work done?

b.    Was the applicant’s work deficient, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant 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.

10.   The parties provided limited evidence about their agreement. The evidence shows the applicant texted the respondent a handwritten note of various items and prices on February 3, 2022. The note was not addressed, signed, or totaled. I find the listed prices add up to $16,700.

11.   It is undisputed that the respondent initially paid the applicant $5,000, and then a further $8,000 installment on about March 4, 2022. There is no evidence before me about when the applicant started or completed the agreed work.

12.   The applicant provided an August 20, 2022, invoice made out to the respondent. It contained slightly different items and prices from what was set out in the February 3, 2022, handwritten note. However, the respondent does not dispute that the invoice reflects the agreed work the applicant completed at the agreed price, and so I accept that it is accurate. The invoice included the following:

a.   Picket railing: $1,800

b.   Mirrors: $1,600

c.    Inside railing: $2,500

d.    Outside railing: $3,500

e.    Shower door: $1,400

f.     Sliding door: $650

g.    Tub door: $400

h.    Tub door: $650

i.      Closets: $4,500

13.   The invoice totaled $17,850 including tax. After accounting for the respondent’s previous payments totaling $13,000, the applicant says the claimed $4,850 remains outstanding.

14.   The applicant texted the respondent on November 2, 2022, to pay the outstanding balance. There is no evidence before me that the respondent replied. The applicant then emailed the respondent a December 2, 2022, letter demanding payment of the $4,850 outstanding balance from its August 20, 2022, invoice.

15.   The respondent denies the applicant’s allegation that they failed to respond to the applicant’s phone and text messages. However, the respondent provided no supporting evidence that they communicated with the applicant about the outstanding balance or why they refused to pay it. The applicant says the respondent never advised that they were dissatisfied with the work.

16.   As a general principle, contractors are entitled to payment upon substantial completion of a project. The respondent admits the applicant completed the work set out in its invoice. So, I find the applicant is entitled to payment of the claimed $4,850 balance, subject to any set-off for proven deficiencies, discussed below.

17.   As the respondent did not file a counterclaim, I infer it is their position that they are entitled to a set-off of the amount owing to the applicant based on alleged deficiencies.

18.   It is an implied term in a contract for professional or trade services that the contractor’s work will meet a reasonably competent standard. As the party alleging substandard work, the respondent bears the burden to prove the deficiencies. See Absolute Industries Ltd. v. Harris, 2014 BCSC 287 at paragraph 61.

19.   Generally, expert evidence is required to prove a professional’s work fell below the required standard. This is because an ordinary person does not know the standards of a particular profession or industry. The exceptions to this general rule are when the work is obviously substandard, or the deficiency relates to something non-technical. See Schellenberg v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 BCSC 196.

20.   The respondent relies on an April 20, 2023, letter from Chris Stewart, who stated they have over 35 years’ experience as a general contractor. I find the author has the required experience to provide expert evidence about the applicant’s work, and so I accept the letter as expert evidence under the CRT’s rules.

21.   The author stated that during an April 15, 2023, inspection of the home, they found the following 4 deficiencies with the applicant’s work that warrant repairs for “aesthetic reasons”:

a. Numerous finishing deficiencies in the closet installations.

b. Exterior railing not aligned to posts.

c. Roughly finished interior handrail.

d. Broken, chipped mirror installation.

22.   I find that photos attached to the letter generally support the alleged deficiencies. So, I accept the author’s opinion that the applicant’s work fell below a reasonably competent standard as it related to the identified items.

23.   However, there are 2 difficulties with the respondent’s request for a set-off. First, the respondent provided no evidence about what work would be required to fix the proven deficiencies or what the cost would be. Second, even if the respondent had provided that evidence, contractors are normally entitled to a reasonable opportunity to address any deficiencies. If the customer does not give the contractor that opportunity, they are generally not entitled to claim damages for having the work fixed or completed by someone else. See Lind v. Storey, 2021 BCPC 2 at paragraph 91.

24.   As noted, the respondent says they verbally advised the applicant about the alleged deficiencies, but the applicant denies this. I find the respondent’s burden to prove deficiencies includes proving that they gave the applicant an opportunity to fix its work. As the respondent has not provided any supporting evidence that they that they advised the applicant about the alleged deficiencies, I find the respondent has not met their burden.

25.   In coming to this conclusion, I have placed considerable weight on the fact that the applicant texted the respondent seeking payment and there is no evidence of any reply text complaining about deficiencies or asking the applicant to come back to fix them. I would have expected to see such a reply under the circumstances. I also note that Chris Stewart’s inspection and letter are dated well after the applicant started this CRT dispute.

26.   Therefore, I find the respondent is not entitled to a set-off because they failed to prove the repair costs, and they did not give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to address any deficiencies. I order the respondent to pay the applicant the claimed $4,850.

27.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. The applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $4,850 from December 2, 2022, the date of the applicant’s demand letter, to the date of this decision. This equals $144.06.

28.   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 the applicant was successful in this dispute, I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $175 paid CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

29.   Within 21 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $5,169.06, broken down as follows:

a. $4,850 in debt,

b. $144.06 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c. $175 in CRT fees.

30.   The applicant 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.