Date Issued: November 23, 2023

File: SC-2023-000984

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Hoglund v. Blackmore, 2023 BCCRT 1012

Between:

MICHAEL JAMES HOGLUND and TAMMY LYNNE HOGLUND

ApplicantS

And:

KARL BLACKMORE

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Leah Volkers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about firewood.

2.      The applicants, Michael James Hoglund and Tammy Lynne Hoglund, purchased a logging truck load of firewood from the respondent, Karl Blackmore, for $3,800. The Hoglunds say Mr. Blackmore delivered a “low quality, low quantity” load of firewood that was unusable. The Hoglunds claim $5,000 for the amount they paid for the firewood, plus removal costs.

3.      Mr. Blackmore says the Hoglunds did not complain when he delivered the firewood, and says there is no proof they even have the firewood he sold them.

4.      The Hoglunds are both represented by Michael Hoglund. Mr. Blackmore is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      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

9.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did Mr. Blackmore breach the parties’ agreement by failing to provide usable firewood?

b.    If yes, what remedies are appropriate?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   As the applicants in this civil proceeding, the Hoglunds must prove their 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.

11.   It is undisputed that the Hoglunds purchased a logging truck load of firewood from Mr. Blackmore for $3,800.

12.   The Hoglunds say Mr. Blackmore delivered the firewood on the evening of February 5, 2022. In his Dispute Response, Mr. Blackmore initially said the Hoglunds purchased the wood in March 2021. However, in his submissions, Mr. Blackmore says the firewood was delivered in February 2022, consistent with the Hoglunds’ own submissions. So, I find Mr. Blackmore delivered the firewood on February 5, 2022. The Hoglunds undisputedly paid Mr. Blackmore $3,800 in cash when the firewood was delivered.

13.   The Hoglunds say the firewood was unusable. Although the Hoglunds do not use these words, I find they allege it was an implied term of the parties’ agreement that the wood Mr. Blackmore provided would be usable firewood.

14.   The court, and the CRT, will only imply a term if it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. Put another way, the term must be something that both parties would have considered obvious if they had been asked about it when they signed the contract. See Zeitler v. Zeitler (Estate), 2010 BCCA 216, at paragraphs 25 to 32. For his part, Mr. Blackmore says he does not recall discussing how good the firewood would be with the Hoglunds, and says it was “bush-run firewood”. Mr. Hoglund did not explain what bush run firewood is. However, the parties’ undisputedly agreed that Mr. Blackmore would provide the Hoglunds with firewood in exchange for payment. So, I find it is an implied term of the parties’ agreement that the wood Mr. Blackmore supplied would be usable firewood.

15.   Mr. Blackmore says the Hoglunds paid in full upon delivery with no complaints. For their part, the Hoglunds say the firewood was delivered during a heavy snowfall when it was dark outside. They say it was difficult to properly inspect the firewood at that time because it was covered in mud, slush and fresh snow from the drive. The Hoglunds say it continued to snow after the firewood was unloaded, and the firewood was blanketed under cover until it melted off in the spring. Mr. Blackmore did not dispute these submissions. Mr. Blackmore also provided a photograph of the firewood load that shows it is mostly covered in snow. I infer the photo was taken before the firewood was delivered to the Hoglunds because the photo was taken during daylight hours. Given the above, I find the firewood was at least partially covered in snow when delivered and I find the Hoglunds were likely unable to fully assess the firewood’s condition until spring as a result.

16.   The Hoglunds say when they were ready to process the “raw logs” in the spring, they observed the wood quality was very low. The Hoglunds say they contacted Mike Luke, the local logger they had initially contacted for firewood, who had connected them with Mr. Blackmore. The Hoglunds say Mike Luke inspected the delivered firewood and confirmed it was of very poor quality and low quantity.

17.   The Hoglunds provided a statement from Mike Luke. In their statement, Mike Luke said they have worked in the forest industry their entire life, run a “self-load log truck”, and sold firewood. Mr. Blackmore did not dispute Mike Luke’s experience and qualifications, and I find Mike Luke is qualified to provide expert evidence on wood quality. Mike Luke provided the following evidence:

a.    The Hoglunds contacted them at the end of 2021 in need of a logging truck load of larch firewood, but they did not have any to sell at the time.

b.     Mr. Blackmore contacted them in February 2022 and said he had a load of “premium larch for sale”, and they connected the Hoglunds with Mr. Blackmore.

c.    The Hoglunds contacted them again in July 2022 with concerns about the firewood from Mr. Blackmore. They went out to look at the firewood, and it was “absolute garbage”. It was 95% rotten, with short and half logs.

d.    They contacted Mr. Blackmore to talk about the load, and Mr. Blackmore agreed to refund the Hoglunds, but did not have any money at the time.

e.    The firewood load Mr. Blackmore provided to the Hoglunds was unacceptable and “absolute robbery” for what the Hoglunds paid for it.

18.   Mr. Blackmore says Mike Luke contacted him first to inquire about firewood, and says he told Mike Luke the firewood was “not the best” at the time. Given that it is disputed, I place little weight on Mike Luke’s hearsay statement that Mr. Blackmore said he had “premium larch for sale”. However, I accept Mike Luke’s expert evidence that the wood provided was largely rotten and of low quality and quantity, which Mr. Blackmore did not dispute.

19.   The Hoglunds also provided a scaling report from Dallas Garcia, a registered log scaler. Mr. Blackmore did not dispute Dallas Garcia’s qualifications, and I find they are qualified to provide expert evidence on wood quality. In their report, Dallas Garcia referred to the firewood as “fuelwood”. They provided the following evidence:

a.    On April 26, 2023, they assessed the wood Mr. Blackmore had delivered to the Hoglunds.

b.    The wood delivered by Mr. Blackmore was misrepresented as fuelwood. The wood did not scale out as fuelwood, and would not even meet “pulp wood” standards. The amount of fuelwood in the load was only 20% of the load’s total volume.

c.    Nearly 50% of the load’s entire volume was deducted for rot. For fuelwood to provide heat it requires the wood to not have excessive decay. Wood with excessive decay is ineffective as firewood, and crates heavy levels of creosote and heavy thick dark smoke. If a similar load had been delivered to any industrial site, it would have been rejected.

20.   Mr. Blackmore also did not dispute Dallas Garcia’s evidence of the wood’s condition. So, I accept Dallas Garcia’s report about the wood’s condition, which is largely consistent with Mike Luke’s statement, discussed above. I find the evidence shows that the wood Mr. Blackmore delivered to the Hoglunds was not usable firewood. So, I find Mr. Blackmore breached the parties’ agreement.

21.   Further, I also find Mr. Blackmore agreed to refund the Hoglunds in any event. Text messages between the parties show that the Hoglunds contacted Mr. Blackmore in August 2022 and told him the firewood was “so junky” and not worth the $3,800 they paid. In response, Mr. Blackmore said that if the Hoglunds had not taken any wood from the load, he would come pick up the firewood and refund them. The Hoglunds responded that they had not touched any of the firewood yet and told Mr. Blackmore he could come pick it up any time. Mr. Blackmore did not address these text messages in his submissions. I find the text messages show Mr. Blackmore agreed to pick up the firewood and refund the Hoglunds the $3,800 they paid for it. It is undisputed that Mr. Blackmore has not done so.

22.   Finally, I note Mr. Blackmore argues there is no proof the Hoglunds even have the wood he sold them, and there is no way of proving it is the same load of wood he delivered or how much of the firewood has been used. For their part, the Hoglunds say the wood has been sitting untouched and “as is” on their property since delivery. Mr. Blackmore did not dispute Mike Luke or Dallas Garcia’s expert evidence, both of whom said they assessed the firewood load provided by Mr. Blackmore on the Hoglunds property. Mr. Blackmore also did not suggest that the Hoglunds had any other wood on their property or provide any evidence to support his allegation. So, I find this bare assertion unsupported by the evidence.

What remedy is appropriate?

23.   The normal remedy for breach of contract is damages. Damages for breach of contract are meant to put the innocent person in the same position as if the contract had been performed. See Water’s Edge Resort v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 319 at paragraph 39.

24.   The Hoglunds collectively claim $5,000 in damages for the amount paid for the firewood plus removal costs.

25.   The Hoglunds still have the firewood but given the expert evidence and my findings above, I find it likely has no resale value. As noted, I also find Mr. Blackmore agreed to refund the Hoglunds and pick up the firewood. So, I find the Hoglunds are reasonably entitled to a full refund of the $3,800 they undisputedly paid for the firewood. Therefore, I find Mr. Blackmore must pay the Hoglunds $3,800 in damages.

26.   Turning to the Hoglunds claim for removal costs, Mr. Blackmore has not removed the firewood as he agreed to do. However, the Hoglunds provided no further submissions or evidence on this claimed remedy. They did not say they plan to remove the firewood, and they did not provide any documentary evidence to detail what the removal costs may be. So, I find this aspect of their claim unproven. I make no order about the firewood itself because Mr. Blackmore failed to pick it up when given the chance. Further, as noted, I have found it likely has no value in any event.

Interest, CRT fees and expenses

27.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. The Hoglunds are entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $3,800 from February 5, 2022, the date they purchased the firewood, to the date of this decision. This equals $198.50.

28.   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. The Hoglunds were substantially successful in this dispute, so I find they are entitled to reimbursement of $175 in CRT fees.

29.   The Hoglunds also claim $500 as a dispute-related expense for the cost of having the firewood “professionally assessed and graded”. As noted, the Hoglunds obtained a Firewood Scaling Report from Dallas Garcia. However, they did not provide any documentary evidence such as an invoice or receipt to support this claimed dispute-related expense. So, I dismiss their claim for reimbursement of this dispute-related expense.

ORDERS

30.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order Mr. Blackmore to pay the Hoglunds a total of $4,173.50, broken down as follows:

a.    $3,800 in damages,

b.    $198.50 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $175 in CRT fees.

31.   The Hoglunds are entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

32.   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.