Date Issued: October 10, 2023

File: SC-2022-0006406

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bradt v. Janzen, 2023 BCCRT 860

Between:

SYLVIA E BRADT

Applicant

And:

TANYA JANZEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Leah Volkers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about renovation services and related issues.

2.      The applicant, Sylvia E Bradt, undisputedly hired MG, who is not a party to this dispute, to provide renovation services. Ms. Bradt says MG overcharged Ms. Bradt for 12 hours of work that was not done, charged tools to Ms. Bradt’s Home Hardware account without permission, and stole materials from Ms. Bradt.

3.      Ms. Bradt says the respondent, Tanya Janzen, acted as MG’s agent “for work done”. Ms. Bradt says Ms. Janzen’s name was on the invoices and the cheques were made out to her. Ms. Bradt collectively claims reimbursement of $4,118.69 for the overcharged labour, the tools charged to her account, and allegedly stolen material.

4.      Ms. Janzen denies Ms. Bradt’s claims. She does not dispute that she accepted payments from Ms. Bradt on MG’s behalf, but says Ms. Bradt knew the payments were for MG. Ms. Janzen says she never had any agreement with Ms. Bradt personally and was not MG’s agent. Ms. Janzen says she did not charge anything to Ms. Bradt’s account or steal any materials.

5.      The parties are each self-represented. I note Ms. Bradt did not provide preferred pronouns. CRT staff advised Ms. Bradt that the CRT would not use pronouns and would instead use Ms. Bradt’s name alone. So, I have done so throughout this decision.

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.

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.

Late submissions

10.   Initially, Ms. Janzen did not provide response submissions by the CRT deadline. However, after Ms. Bradt’s final reply submissions deadline had passed, Ms. Janzen provided emails to CRT staff with what appeared to be her response submissions. CRT staff asked Ms. Janzen to confirm whether these emails were her response submissions. Ms. Janzen did not reply to the CRT staff’s final email. However, on review of the correspondence, I find Ms. Janzen confirmed she wanted to rely on the emails as her response submissions. So, at my request, CRT staff provided the emails to both parties as Ms. Janzen’s response submissions. Ms. Brandt was then provided with an opportunity to provide final reply submissions on those response submissions, and did so. I find Ms. Bradt has not been prejudiced by Ms. Janzen’s technical non-compliance with the submissions deadline, and I have considered Mr. Janzen’s late response submissions and Ms. Bradt’s reply submissions in this dispute.

ISSUE

11.   The issue in this dispute is whether Ms. Janzen is responsible to reimburse Ms. Bradt $4,118.69 for alleged labour overcharges, tools and materials.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12.   In a civil claim like this one, Ms. Bradt, as the applicant, must prove Ms. Bradt’s 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.

Labour overcharge

13.   As noted, Ms. Bradt says MG overcharged for 12 hours of labour when no work was performed. MG is not a party to this dispute. However, Ms. Bradt alleges Ms. Janzen was MG’s agent “for work done”, and claims repayment for the alleged labour overcharge from Ms. Janzen.

14.   Ms. Bradt says Ms. Janzen’s name was on the invoices and the cheque was made out to Ms. Janzen. It is undisputed that Ms. Janzen accepted payment for at least some of MG’s services on MG’s behalf. However, this does not necessarily make Ms. Janzen personally liable for the return of any alleged overpayments. As noted, Ms. Janzen says Ms. Bradt knew the payments were for MG, which Ms. Bradt does not dispute.

15.   The law of agency applies when one party (the principal) gives authority to another party (the agent) to enter into contracts with third parties on the principal’s behalf. In an agency situation, a principal can sue or be sued on a contract entered into by the agent. As long as the agent discloses that they are acting as an agent for the principal, the agent generally will not be liable under a contract they make between the principal and third party. See Keddie v. Canada Life Assurance Co., 1999 BCCA 541.

16.   Here, the evidence does not support a finding that Ms. Janzen entered into any contract with Ms. Bradt on MG’s behalf, or personally. There is no written contract in evidence. The evidence shows Ms. Bradt contacted MG directly through Facebook messenger to inquire and arrange for MG to provide renovation services, and Ms. Bradt’s submissions also indicate that Ms. Bradt was interacting directly with MG. Further, the only invoice in evidence is an August 2, 2022 invoice from MG to Ms. Bradt for 14 hours of work at $30 per hour. This invoice did not list Ms. Janzen’s name. The evidence does not include any invoices that list Ms. Janzen, nor any proof of any payments from Ms. Bradt to either MG or Ms. Janzen. As noted, Ms. Bradt undisputedly knew the payments to Ms. Janzen were for MG, so I find Ms. Janzen likely disclosed she was accepting payments solely on MG’s behalf. Given all the above, I find Ms. Bradt contracted directly with MG for renovation services. I find Ms. Janzen was not MG’s agent nor a party to the contract between MG and Ms. Bradt.

17.   Although Ms. Bradt undisputedly paid Ms. Janzen, I find the payment was likely for Ms. Bradt’s contract with MG. Therefore, to the extent that Ms. Bradt claims against Ms. Janzen personally for MG’s alleged labour overpayment, I find Ms. Janzen is not responsible to reimburse Ms. Brandt for it under MG’s contract with Ms. Bradt.

Tools and materials

18.   As noted, Ms. Bradt also claims reimbursement for tools allegedly charged to Ms. Bradt’s Home Hardware account without permission and materials taken when the renovation was finished.

19.   In submissions, Ms. Bradt says that MG charged tools to Ms. Bradt’s Home Hardware account. The account ledger in evidence shows that only MG charged for tools and other supplies. There is no reference to Ms. Janzen anywhere on the account ledger, and Ms. Bradt did not allege that Ms. Janzen herself charged any tools to Ms. Bradt’s account. So, I find this claim against Ms. Janzen unproven, and I dismiss it.

20.   Finally, Ms. Bradt also says that MG and Ms. Janzen broke into Ms. Bradt’s trailer twice. First, on August 1, 2022 to get MG’s tools, and again on August 2, 2022 to “put up 2 kitchen cabinets”. Ms. Janzen disputes this. It is unclear whether the tools allegedly taken on August 1, 2022 were the same tools Ms. Bradt alleges were charged to the Home Hardware account. Facebook messages in evidence between Ms. Bradt and JD, a third party who I infer is related to Ms. Janzen, show that Ms. Bradt indicated “nails screws and stuff” were taken. However, Ms. Bradt provided no further details of the materials allegedly taken, or their value.

21.   Although Ms. Bradt alleges that Ms. Janzen broke into Ms. Bradt’s trailer with MG, Ms. Bradt did not say that Ms. Janzen herself took any materials or tools. Further, in Facebook messages between Ms. Bradt and MG on the day of the alleged break-in show Ms. Bradt accused MG of breaking in, which MG disputed. However, neither Ms. Bradt nor MG made any reference to Ms. Janzen in those messages. Given all the above, I find Ms. Bradt has not met the required burden of proving Ms. Janzen broke into the trailer or took any of Ms. Bradt’s materials.

22.   Nothing in this decision prevents Ms. Bradt from filing a claim against MG, subject to the applicable limitation period.

CRT fees and expenses

23.   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 Ms. Bradt was unsuccessful, I find Ms. Bradt is not entitled to reimbursement of any paid CRT fees. Ms. Janzen did not pay any CRT fees and neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

24.   I dismiss Ms. Bradt’s claims and this dispute.