Date Issued: September 29, 2023

File: SC-2022-006447

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Aroll Home Improvement & Design Ltd. v. 13445259 Canada Inc.,

2023 BCCRT 832

Between:

AROLL HOME IMPROVEMENT & DESIGN LTD.

Applicant

And:

13445259 CANADA INC.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Leah Volkers

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Aroll Home Improvement & Design Ltd. (Aroll) says it paid the respondent, 13445259 Canada Inc. (134) $750 for marketing set up services that were never provided. Aroll says 134 agreed to return the $750 paid, and has already returned $350. Aroll claims the $400 balance.

2.      134 says it has already reimbursed Aroll a partial amount after accounting for some completed work. 134 says it owes Aroll nothing further.

3.      Aroll is represented by its owner, Alexey Roldugin. 134 is represented by a person I infer is an authorized employee.

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. 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.

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 134 must reimburse Aroll the claimed $400.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim like this one, Aroll, as the applicant, must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not). Apart from its Dispute Response, 134 did not provide any submissions or documentary evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so. I have reviewed all of Aroll’s submissions and evidence but refer only to what I find necessary to explain my decision.

10.   The parties agreed 134 would provide marketing set up services to Aroll. Aroll paid 134 $750 for the services. None of this is disputed.

11.   Aroll says 134 did not provide the marketing set up services and agreed to return the $750 Aroll paid.

12.   As noted, in its Dispute Response, 134 says it has already paid Aroll “some amount” based on the percentage of work it says it completed. 134 says it was working on the services when an issue arose with Aroll “being ethical on a job”. 134 says the business relationship was negatively affected, which impacted the job as well. It is unclear what job 134 is referring to. 134 says it is not fair for Aroll to ask for further reimbursement because some work was done.

13.   Aroll provided text messages between the parties that show that 134 told Aroll that a few “codes” had been done for “Facebook pixel”, and requested access to Aroll’s website. However, Aroll says that although it provided access instructions for its website, it never received an email that 134 was requesting administrator access to Aroll’s website. Aroll says 134 never had access to its social media or its website, and so no work could be completed. As noted, 134 did not provide any documentary evidence or submissions to dispute these submissions. So, I find that 134 never had access to Aroll’s social media accounts or website. 134 also did not provide any details of the partial work it says it completed. I find the evidence does not show that 134 completed any of the marketing set up work.

14.   Text messages between the parties also show that Aroll asked 134 to return the $750 Aroll paid for the marketing set up work, and 134 agreed to do so. Specifically, on August 5, 2022, Aroll asked for the $750 to be returned, and 134 said it would return it the following day. The evidence shows 134 returned $350 on August 8, 2022, and said it would return “the rest” after the 15^th, which I infer is the claimed $400 by August 15, 2022. Despite some reminders from Aroll and reassurances from 134 that the remaining $400 would be returned shortly, 134 did not return the remaining $400. There is no mention during these text messages exchanges about a partial credit for some work done. I note the text messages show that 134 raised some issues with what I infer is another project with Aroll in September 2022. I infer these are likely the “ethical issues” that 134 says arose. However, 134 did not further explain this allegation, or how it related to the $750 Aroll paid for marketing set up services that were not provided. So, I find this evidence does not show 134 is entitled to keep any of the outstanding $400.

15.   In summary, I find 134 did not provide any of the marketing set up services, and agreed to return the $750 payment to Aroll in any event. The evidence shows 134 has already returned $350, leaving $400 outstanding. So, I find 134 must refund Aroll $400.

Interest, CRT fees and expenses

16.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Aroll is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $400 payment from August 6, 2022, the date the parties agreed the entire $750 would be returned, to the date of this decision. This equals $16.52.

17.   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 Aroll was successful, I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. Neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

18.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order 134 to pay Aroll a total of $541.52, broken down as follows:

a.    $400 in debt,

b.    $16.52 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

19.   Aroll is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

20.   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.