Date Issued: August 18, 2023

File: SC-2022-008414

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Waddell v. Williams, 2023 BCCRT 703

Between:

JUNE ROSE WADDELL

Applicant

And:

BRIAN MUSGRAVE, Executor of the Estate LLOYD WILLIAMS, Deceased and BRIAN MUSGRAVE, Executor of the Estate CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Deceased

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	David Jiang

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about water damage. The applicant, June Rose Waddell, resides in a strata lot directly under another strata lot previously occupied by Lloyd and Claire Williams. The Williamses are deceased, so the respondents are Brian Musgrave, Executor Of The Estate Lloyd Williams, Deceased, and Brian Musgrave, Executor Of The Estate Claire Williams, Deceased.

2.      Ms. Waddell says that the Williamses failed to maintain their strata lot, air conditioner, and furnace, causing water to enter her strata lot. She seeks $1,921.21 as the estimated cost of repairing water damage to her ceiling, drywall, and carpeting.

3.      Mr. Musgrave disagrees. He says that documents show that Ms. Waddell already settled all her claims against the Williamses, including this one, for $1,038.11.

4.      Ms. Waddell represents herself. Mr. Musgrave represents the respondents.

5.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss Ms. Waddell’s claims.

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. 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.

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.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are as follows:

a.    Are Ms. Waddell’s claims barred by a settlement agreement?

b.    Are the respondents liable in negligence for the claimed water damage?

BACKGROUND, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Ms. Waddell as the applicant must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities. This means more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

12.   Ms. Waddell says that in June 2021 she woke up to water coming through her bedroom ceiling. She advised the strata corporation (strata). The strata called ABK Restoration Services (ABK). ABK’s documents show it arrived the same morning of the call on June 26, 2021. ABK said that the cause of the leak was likely a “failed AC unit” in the strata lot directly above.

13.   The Williamses kept handwritten notes about the leak that are consistent with ABK’s report. The notes say the following. The Williamses’ air conditioner malfunctioned, causing water to enter Ms. Waddell’s strata lot. The Williamses hired a plumber from Rapid Cool. The plumber said that the cause of the leak was that “the person we bought the condo from hadn’t changed the filter in 3 years”. This created condensation to back up.

14.   ABK carried out emergency water extraction and remediation. It charged Ms. Waddell $1,038.11. A July 29, 2021 receipt shows she paid this.

15.   ABK also provided a July 28, 2021 quote to actually repair the water damage. Unlike the emergency work, it consisted of repairs and repainting the damaged areas in Ms. Waddell’s master bedroom, hallway, and ensuite bathroom. These included the ceiling, walls, and flooring. The total price was $1,921.21, the amount claimed in this dispute.

16.   In a July 26, 2021 email, the strata manager told Ms. Waddell that the emergency work and repairs both totaled less than the strata’s $25,000 deductible. So, the strata refused to make an insurance claim or otherwise cover these costs.

17.   Mr. Waddell sent the Willams a December 14, 2021 letter. She offered to settle her claims about water damage to her strata lot if the Williamses paid $1,038.11 to reimburse her the cost of the emergency work. She said she would pay for the estimated repairs of $1,921.21 herself. She added, “Should you decline this compromise or I do not receive a response in writing prior to Friday, December 31, 2021 I will be proceeding to the Civil Resolution Tribunal…on Tuesday January 4, 2022”.

18.   The Williamses sent Ms. Waddell a cheque dated May 1, 2022, for $1,038.11. Ms. Waddell did not immediately cash it. She sought legal advice first. After this, her lawyer sent a July 8, 2022 letter to the Williamses. The lawyer said that Ms. Waddell 1) would deposit the cheque, 2) the deposit was not an admission that the Williamses had paid in full, and 3) $1,921.21 was still owing. The lawyer provided a deadline of August 10, 2022, for the Williamses to provide the balance owing.

19.   At some point the Williamses passed away after sending the May 1, 2022 cheque. No one responded to the July 8, 2022 letter. Ms. Waddell applied for dispute resolution on November 3, 2022.

 

Are Ms. Waddell’s claims barred by a settlement agreement?

20.   As noted above, Mr. Musgrave says the settlement agreement bars Ms. Waddell’s claims. Ms. Waddell disagrees. She says the offer to settle expired because the Williamses did not respond by the deadline of December 31, 2021.

21.   I find this dispute hinges on contract interpretation. Interpreting a contract involves a determination of the objective meaning of the written text of the contract, as informed by the surrounding circumstances. A party’s subjective beliefs about the intent and meaning of the terms are generally not useful in interpreting the contract. See Tai An Holding Company Ltd. v. Boyal, 2022 BCSC 821 at paragraphs 53 and 54.

22.   I find that Ms. Waddell entered into the settlement agreement for the following reasons.

23.   First, I find it clear that Ms. Waddell offered to settle her claims in the December 14, 2021 letter. As stated earlier, she offered to settle the same matter in this dispute for $1,038.11.

24.   Second, Ms. Waddell said that she would proceed with a CRT claim on January 4, 2022, if 1) the Williamses refused the offer, or 2) she did not receive a response by December 31, 2021. There is no indication the Williamses explicitly refused the offer. There is also no indication that Ms. Waddell received a response by December 31, 2021. However, Ms. Waddell did not explicitly state in her letter that the offer would be withdrawn or would expire on December 31, 2021 or any other date.

25.   In other circumstances I might conclude the offer expired on that date. However, this brings me to my third point. I find that the parties’ conduct after December 31, 2021 supports my interpretation that the offer was still open, or if it had expired, was revived.

26.   Ms. Waddell did not apply for dispute resolution at the CRT until November 3, 2022. This is nearly a year after the deadline to respond by writing. As she did not comply with her own deadline, I find this supports a conclusion that the settlement offer was still open or could be revied.

27.   The Williamses also sent the May 2022 payment, which matches the amount in the offer. I find the most logical interpretation for the payment in these circumstances is that it was intended to settle Ms. Waddell’s claim. The evidence before me does not provide any other reasonable explanation for why the Williamses would provide such a payment.

28.   Consistent with my conclusion, the Williamses’ insurer wrote them a July 4, 2022 letter. It said that “you indicated that you had directly reached a resolution with…June Waddell”. As such, they had “withdrawn the claim” for water damage claim with the insurer. I find the fact that the Williamses made such representation to third parties consistent with the existence of a settlement agreement.

29.   Further, from my review I find the Williamses wrote in their notes that they felt they were not at fault. This is consistent with my conclusion that the payment was made under the terms of a settlement agreement.

30.   I find that, from an objective perspective, if Ms. Waddell’s offer had expired or had been withdrawn, she would have returned the cheque or, at a minimum, sought further clarification with the Williamses before depositing it. I acknowledge that Ms. Waddell instead sought clarification with a lawyer. The lawyer said in the July 2022 letter that depositing the cheque was not an admission that the Williamses had paid in full. However, I put little weight or significance on this because, as stated earlier, there is no indication that Ms. Waddell attempted to clarify what the payment was for with the Williamses, before sending the July 2022 letter or depositing the cheque. The letter also did not ask or provide a timeline for the Williamses to clarify the matter. Instead, it provided a deadline to pay the balance owing.

31.   Ms. Waddell’s submissions also show that she was aware that depositing the cheque might be interpreted as settling her claim. So, I find she was alive to this possibility and should have reasonably done more to clarify the matter with the Williamses.

32.   For all those reasons, I find Ms. Waddell’s claim must fail because it falls under the terms of a written settlement agreement. Given my conclusion, I find it unnecessary to decide whether the Williamses were negligent.

33.   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. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I dismiss Mr. Waddell’s claims for reimbursement.

ORDER

34.   I dismiss Ms. Waddell’s claims and this dispute.