Date Issued: October 17, 2023

Files: SC-2022-009706
and SC-CC-2023-001887

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Choi v. S&S Westcoast Floors and Floors Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 885

Between:

S&S WESTCOAST FLOORS AND FLOORS LTD.

Applicant

And:

JOHN CHOI

Respondent

And:

S&S WESTCOAST FLOORS AND FLOORS LTD.

Respondent by counterclaim

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	David Jiang

INTRODUCTION

1.      These 2 linked disputes are about the balance owing under a flooring supply and installation contract. In dispute number SC-2022-009706, the applicant and respondent by counterclaim, S&S Westcoast Floors and Floors Ltd. (S&S), says the respondent and applicant by counterclaim, John Choi, owes $1,900. It seeks an order of payment of this amount plus contractual interest.

2.      Mr. Choi denies liability. He says S&S never finished the work and damaged his HVAC system. He says that the parties verbally entered into a settlement agreement about their opposing claims for a final payment by Mr. Choi to S&S of $1,500. Mr. Choi says he made this final payment as well.

3.      In dispute number SC-CC-2023-001887, the applicant is Mr. Choi and the respondent by counterclaim is S&S. Mr. Choi counterclaims for $1,900, comprised of $1,200 for the cost to complete S&S’s work and $700 to fix the HVAC system damage. I note the counterclaims are inconsistent with the existence of the alleged settlement agreement and I discuss this below.

4.      S&S denies causing any damage and says it completed the work.

5.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss all claims and counterclaims.

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.

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.

10.   Mr. Choi did not provide evidence in dispute number SC-2022-009706. S&S did not provide evidence in SC-CC-2023-001887. They both had the opportunity to do so. Ultimately both parties provided evidence that I have considered for both disputes in reaching my decision. This is because in each dispute, the parties are the same, the issues are linked, and the submissions and evidence overlap. Considering the submissions and evidence together avoids inconsistent findings.

ISSUES

11.   The issues in this dispute are as follows:

a.    Did the parties enter into a binding settlement agreement?

b.    If not, did either party breach the contract and if so, is either entitled to compensation?

BACKGROUND, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12.   In a civil proceeding like this one, S&S and Mr. Choi must prove their respective claims and counterclaims 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.

13.   The parties entered into a written contract dated August 28, 2021. It said the following. S&S agreed to provide and install flooring, underlay, and transition moldings on the top 2 floors of a home, including the stairs. S&S also agreed to remove and dispose of the existing flooring and prime the baseboards for painting. It scheduled September 27, 2021 as the start date. Mr. Choi agreed to pay a total of $14,400, plus an additional $285 at a later point for a floor material change. He also agreed to a deposit of $1,000 initially, plus another $6,285 prior to work starting. He agreed to pay the balance of $7,400 on completion.

14.   Mr. Choi’s financial records show he paid $3,285 by September 3, 2021. Although this was less than the required deposit, I find S&S was satisfied this was sufficient to start. This is because the photos and submissions show it began and completed the work around October 2021.

15.   Also in October 2021, Mr. Choi complained to S&S through WhatsApp that S&S’s work was incomplete and deficient. On October 21, 2021, Mr. Choi sent photos that I find show the following. There were visually unappealing gaps between the flooring and moldings. The flooring installed around curved surfaces, such as a rounded stair, was cut in a jagged manner. Some of the moldings on the stairs were not installed. S&S replied that it would schedule someone to “come out to your place”. There is no indication this ever occurred.

16.   Mr. Choi also outlined his complaints about the work in a November 8, 2021 email to S&S. He said a contractor quoted $1,150 to fix the identified deficiencies. This is slightly less than the $1,200 Mr. Choi counterclaims for, to fix the work. Mr. Choi added that the whole house interior became covered in dust from cutting the laminate flooring inside the house. Mr. Choi provided as evidence an air duct cleaning invoice for $729.50, which I note is slightly more than the $700 he counterclaims reimbursement for.

17.   Mr. Choi’s financial records show that from August 30 to November 10, 2021, he paid S&S a total of $11,285. This left a balance owing of $3,400. I will discuss below why this is more than the $1,500 S&S claims. With that background, I turn to the specific evidence about the alleged settlement agreement.

Did the parties enter into a binding settlement agreement?

18.   The party seeking to rely on a settlement agreement, here Mr. Choi, bears the burden to prove its existence on a balance of probabilities. See Salminen v. Garvie, 2011 BCSC 339 at paragraph 26.

19.   For such a contract to exist, there must be a “meeting of the minds”. In other words, the parties must agree to all the essential terms of a contract. There also must be an outward expression of their agreement, regardless of whether that expression is communicated in writing, verbally, by the parties’ conduct, or some combination of these. See Le Soleil Hotel & Suites Ltd. v. Le Soleil Management Inc., 2009 BCSC 1303, at paragraphs 322 to 325. The parties’ subjective intentions or beliefs about what they agreed to are not relevant. The existence of a contract is determined by asking whether an objective bystander, knowing the material facts, would understand that the parties had entered into a contract based on their correspondence and conduct. See Crosse Estate (Re), 2012 BCSC 26, at paragraphs 27 to 33.

20.   I find it clear that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement that was documented in the parties’ November 10, 2021 WhatsApp messages. I note that Mr. Choi said the agreement was verbal, but I find it was wholly documented in the messages.

21.   On that date, S&S verified in the messages that the balance owing was $3,400. It said it would settle for payment of $2,800. Mr. Choi replied by referring to his November 8, 2021 email. He sent it again to S&S at a different email address to ensure it received it. I will quote some of the messages below and retain the original spelling and grammar. After sending the email again, Mr. Choi countered, “I can send u guys 1500 right now and settle this asap don’t need to waste my time or yours”. As noted above, the November 8, 2021 email outlines Mr. Choi’s counterclaims. So, I find Mr. Choi clearly offered to settle both his counterclaims and S&S’s claims with a payment of $1,500.

22.   I find that S&S accepted Mr. Choi’s settlement offer by replying, “E-transfer $1500.” I find this is the most objectively reasonably interpretation of the message. S&S’s submissions were brief and did not substantively address the settlement agreement issue. To whatever extent S&S says it subjectively did not intend to settle its claims for $1,500, I find this is not relevant. I say this because of the reasoning in Le Soleil Hotel & Suites Ltd., cited above.

23.   The financial documents show that Mr. Choi acted on the settlement agreement by transferring $1,500 on November 10, 2021. Consistent with this, he wrote, “Sent done. We’re settled. Thx”. I find that by this time, the parties had agreed on the essential terms, both parties had exchanged mutually binding promises, and Mr. Choi had taken the final step of the last payment of $1,500.

24.   I acknowledge that, immediately after this, S&S wrote, “Balance owing $1900.” I acknowledge this message suggests that S&S felt the $1,500 payment was merely made to reduce the balance outstanding balance from $3,400. However, I find this interpretation was objectively unreasonable. The preceding messages were clearly about settling the parties’ claims. S&S itself initially raised the issue of settling its claim for less money. The payment amount exactly matches the mutually agreed-upon settlement amount. The photos, message, and invoice amply demonstrate each parties’ disagreements, as discussed above, and provide the reason for the settlement.

25.   For those reasons, I dismiss S&S’s claim for payment of $1,900 plus contractual interest. For essentially the same reasons, I dismiss Mr. Choi’s counterclaims for $1,900, being the approximate cost of completing and fixing any deficiencies, and the cost of cleaning the air ducts. I find that by relying on the settlement agreement, he is barred from making those counterclaims under its terms.

26.   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. Neither party succeeded in proving their respective claims or counterclaims. So, I decline to order reimbursement for either party.

ORDER

27.   I dismiss S&S’s claims, Mr. Choi’s counterclaims, and this dispute.