Date Issued: September 21, 2023

File: SC-2022-006452

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Haley v. The Great Canadian Roof Doctor Inc., 2023 BCCRT 802

Between:

OWEN HALEY

Applicant

And:

THE GREAT CANADIAN ROOF DOCTOR INC.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Leah Volkers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about roofing services. The applicant, Owen Haley, says he provided roofing services at a residential property for the respondent, The Great Canadian Roof Doctor Inc. (Roof Doctor), but has not been paid in full. Mr. Haley says Roof Doctor has refused to pay for additional work required and expenses incurred, and claims $1,608.77 for his unpaid invoice balance and additional gas and live-out expenses.

2.      Roof Doctor says Mr. Haley’s invoice is incorrect. Roof Doctor says it has already paid Mr. Haley the agreed amounts for the additional work and owes nothing further.

3.      Mr. Haley is self-represented. Roof Doctor is represented by its director.

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 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. The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly where there is conflict, cannot be determined solely by the test of whose personal demeanour in a courtroom or tribunal proceeding appears to be the most truthful. The assessment of what is the most likely account depends on its harmony with the rest of the evidence. 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. I also note that in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, at paragraphs 32 to 38, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized the CRT’s process and found that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is an issue.

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.

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.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Roof Doctor is responsible to pay Mr. Haley the claimed $1,608.77.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim like this one, Mr. Haley, as the applicant, must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not). I have reviewed all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to what I find necessary to explain my decision.

10.   It is undisputed Mr. Haley was a subcontractor hired by Roof Doctor to replace a residential home’s roof. Mr. Haley says he has not been fully paid for the roofing services he provided. Mr. Haley says at the beginning of the roof replacement work, he discovered additional required repairs to the fascia boards and roof deck. It is undisputed that Mr. Haley contacted Roof Doctor and advised that additional work was required. However, the parties dispute the terms of their agreement for this additional work.

11.   Despite this, I find I do not need to determine whether Roof Doctor agreed to reimburse Mr. Haley for any of the claimed $1,608.77 for additional work and expenses. I say this because for the reasons set out below, I find Mr. Haley has not proved he incurred any of the $1,608.77 claimed, or on what basis.

12.   In evidence is an August 12, 2022 invoice from “Haley Roofing”, which I find is likely Mr. Haley doing business as Haley Roofing. The invoice charged Roof Doctor a total of $12,446.77 for the roof replacement, broken down as follows:

a.    Labour - $8,000

b.    Live out expenses - $1,400

c.    Materials purchased by Mr. Haley - $2,454.07

d.    GST - $592.70

13.   The invoice listed $1,161.77 as the overdue amount, after applying $2,000 for a “draw” which I find was two $1,000 advances from Roof Doctor, $1,100 for expenses paid by Roof Doctor, and another $8,185 for Roof Doctor’s partial payments. In total, I find Roof Doctor paid Mr. Haley $11,285 for the roof replacement, including an undisputed $1,100 expenses payment.

14.   Mr. Haley says he was verbally reassured that any materials purchased, and any extra costs related to travel and accommodation would be reimbursed. Mr. Haley says he knew the work would take longer with the additional repairs required, and notified Roof Doctor that he and his two workers would have to travel home (to another town) and return another day to complete the work. Mr. Haley says Roof Doctor again confirmed he would be reimbursed. Mr. Haley says he provided Roof Doctor with all the receipts for his expenses, but Roof Doctor refused to reimburse him for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred in travelling home to another town and then back to the work site.

15.   For its part, Roof Doctor says it initially agreed to pay Mr. Haley $7,200 plus GST for the roof replacement. Roof Doctor says after being advised of the further repairs, it agreed to reimburse Mr. Haley for additional materials, and also agreed to pay Mr. Haley a further $2,000 for the additional labour required.

16.   Roof Doctor also says Mr. Haley asked Roof Doctor to book accommodation during the roof replacement for him, and the parties discussed how long to book the accommodation and specific travel dates. Roof Doctor says it booked accommodation for 4 nights from July 27 to July 31. Roof Doctor says extra travel and accommodation was not discussed, and says if Mr. Haley and his workers had arrived Wednesday morning and worked until Sunday night as originally planned, they would not have needed to travel back and forth and pay extra for accommodation. Roof Doctor says Mr. Haley left the booked accommodation empty for one night, but then charged Roof Doctor for additional booked nights elsewhere. Mr. Haley did not specifically dispute leaving the accommodation early, but says he had to go back to the town where he lived for a prior commitment. Mr. Haley also did not say when he left the paid accommodation, or what days he worked at the roof replacement.

17.   Roof Doctor says it is not responsible for any extra travel or accommodation time, and says the “living out expenses” were to be included in the original contract price. Mr. Haley says they agreed the accommodation would be $800 total and paid for by Roof Doctor, but then Roof Doctor charged him $1,200. The evidence does not show Roof Doctor charged Mr. Haley for accommodation, so I place little weight on this submission. In any event, there is no documentary evidence to show Mr. Haley incurred any further accommodation expenses, and Mr. Haley did not detail further accommodation expenses he says he incurred, so I find it unnecessary to further address this issue.

18.   Mr. Haley says that Roof Doctor did not pay him for his “extra work, travel, living costs, materials, etc.”. However, Mr. Haley did not break down the $1,608.77 claimed in this dispute, beyond saying that the expenses included materials, gas, and food. He also says he was not paid for the GST charge. None of this is detailed in the invoice or elsewhere. Further, the amount claimed in this dispute is different from both the $1,161.77 listed as outstanding on the invoice, as well as the invoiced amount for materials purchased by Mr. Haley after applying Roof Doctor’s undisputed $1,100 expenses payment. Mr. Haley did not explain or break out the portions of the revised invoice that were incurred as a result of the additional work agreed to, or explain the discrepancy between the amount outstanding on the invoice and the amount claimed in this dispute. Mr. Haley also did not explain why the alleged additional gas and live-out expenses were not included on the invoice, when other expenses were.

19.   Mr. Haley’s documentary evidence includes his invoice, a statement from one of his workers that confirmed additional work was required but did not address the additional expenses Mr. Haley says he incurred, and an email from the homeowner saying they were satisfied with Mr. Haley’s work. None of this proves Mr. Haley incurred the expenses he claims in this dispute. There is no other evidence, such as banking or credit card records, to confirm Mr. Haley incurred any of these claimed expenses.

20.   I acknowledge Mr. Haley’s submissions that he could not provide receipts for his claimed expenses in evidence because he provided the receipts themselves to Roof Doctor for payment. However, Mr. Haley provided this submission in his final reply arguments. I find it is not proper reply evidence, and Roof Doctor did not have an opportunity to respond to it. So, I have given this submission little weight. In any event, I find Mr. Haley did not otherwise provide sufficient detail of the alleged expenses he incurred in order for me to be able to determine whether they were incurred as part of the additional work agreed to, or whether Roof Doctor agreed to pay for these alleged expenses separately.

21.   Based on the evidence, I find Mr. Haley has not proved that he incurred the claimed $1,608.77 in additional expenses during the roof replacement, or on what basis. So, I find he is not entitled to any reimbursement, and I dismiss Mr. Haley’s claims.

CRT fees and expenses

22.   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 Mr. Haley was unsuccessful, I dismiss his fee claim. Roof Doctor did not pay any CRT fees and neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

23.   I dismiss Mr. Haley’s claims and this dispute.