Date Issued: January 26, 2024

File: SC-2023-003122

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Metro Vancouver Railings Ltd. v. DuVernet, 2024 BCCRT 080

Between:

METRO VANCOUVER RAILINGS LTD.

Applicant

And:

MORGAN DUVERNET

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Micah Carmody

INTRODUCTION

1.      Metro Vancouver Railings Ltd. (Metro) says Morgan DuVernet ordered custom aluminum railings for her home. Metro says when it delivered the railings, Ms. DuVernet’s husband wanted a different design and refused delivery. Metro seeks $2,200 for what it says was the agreed price for the railings. An employee represents Metro.

2.      Ms. DuVernet says she never confirmed the job. She says she requested a quote from Metro but never received one, and then selected a different company to provide the railings. Ms. DuVernet represents herself.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has authority over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA says the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly.

4.      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. In some respects, the parties in this dispute call into question each other’s credibility. Credibility of 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. In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the court recognized that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is in issue. In the circumstances of this dispute, I find that I am able to assess and weigh the evidence and submissions before me. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and prompt resolution of disputes, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

5.      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 court.

ISSUES

6.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did the parties have a binding contract?

b.    If so, is Metro entitled to some or all of the claimed $2,200?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

7.      As the applicant in this civil proceeding, Metro must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. While I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

8.      On March 1, 2023, Ms. DuVernet texted a Metro representative. She said she was looking for a quote on 44 feet of white picket aluminum railing. Metro said it would cost around $2,200 and it would take 2 weeks to manufacture after measuring. Ms. DuVernet asked for a formal quote, and Metro asked for the address so it could measure. On March 3, Metro said it had measured the job and the price, assuming Ms. DuVernet removed the old railing herself, would be $2,200, or 10% less if she paid cash. Ms. DuVernet confirmed that she was planning to remove the old railing herself. She asked again for a formal quote and asked if Metro would “top mount” to the concrete. Metro replied, “Yes.”

9.      The parties did not exchange any more texts until March 15 when Metro advised that the railings were ready and told Ms. DuVernet to remove the old railings for installation. Ms. DuVernet did not respond. On March 17, Metro reported that it came to install the railings that day, but Ms. DuVernet’s husband said he did not want the railings. Metro took its railings back.

10.   The top of the railings Metro had made was rounded, while Ms. DuVernet and her husband said they wanted a rectangular top to match existing railing on the property. Metro offered to modify the railing tops for $500, but Ms. DuVernet declined. Metro insisted on payment, taking the position that Ms. DuVernet had accepted the job. Ms. DuVernet took the position that she had never approved the work and was waiting for a formal quote. The parties essentially take the same positions in this dispute.

11.   This dispute turns on whether the parties had a binding contract. A binding contract requires a meeting of the minds on all essential terms. It is not enough for one party to subjectively believe there is a contract. The test for determining whether the parties had a meeting of the minds is an objective one, requiring a consideration of the outward expressions of the parties’ intentions (see Hodder Construction (1993) Ltd. v. Topolnisky, 2021 BCSC 666, at paragraph 114).

12.   For the following reasons, I find Metro has not established that there was a meeting of the minds between the parties on all the essential terms. Metro says it provided Ms. DuVernet with all the information, pricing, and installation schedule verbally on the phone. Ms. DuVernet denies this. She says she never approved the job itself or the installation, and was waiting for a written quote. I find Metro’s evidence about the alleged verbal discussions is unreliable for the following reasons. First, Metro does not provide any phone records confirming that it spoke with Ms. DuVernet at all. Second, Metro does not provide specifics about what was discussed on what dates. Third, I find Metro’s evidence overall is unreliable. In texts after Ms. DuVernet refused delivery, Metro said it had confirmed details by phone and emailed Ms. DuVernet a quote. However, Ms. DuVernet denies ever giving Metro her email address and Metro has not provided a copy of any quote or email in evidence. So, I find Metro did not email Ms. DuVernet a quote, despite believing that it had. Metro does not explain this, and I find this means its evidence about how it communicated with Ms. DuVernet is not entirely reliable. Overall, I find Metro has not proven that the parties discussed anything on the phone, so it must rely on the text messages to establish the parties’ agreement.

13.   I find the text messages are insufficient to show a meeting of the minds. I acknowledge that Ms. DuVernet at times said “great” and other affirmative expressions. However, an objective bystander would see these statements not as expressing agreement, but rather expressing interest in seeing a formal quote on which to base an agreement. In her last messages on March 3, Ms. DuVernet again asked for a quote, but Metro did not reply or provide a quote. Then, 12 days later, Metro announced that the railing was ready. I find that Ms. DuVernet’s silence in response to that text, viewed objectively, did not mean she accepted Metro’s offer and approved installation.

14.   I also find the parties did not agree on the railing top style, which I find was an essential term. Although Metro sent Ms. DuVernet a photo of a typical railing, I cannot determine whether the photo made clear that the railing top was rounded. The parties did not explicitly discuss the railing top style in their texts.

15.   For all these reasons, I find Metro has not established that the parties had a binding contract. Metro is therefore not entitled to contractual payment.

16.   I also find Metro is not entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis, which means value for work done. Metro’s work provided no value to Ms. DuVernet as Metro undisputedly did not install the railings and took them back. I acknowledge that Metro incurred costs fabricating and delivering the railings, but quantum meruit requires the other party to be enriched in some way (see Hucul v. GN Ventures Ltd., 2022 BCSC 144, at paragraphs 246, 264).

17.   For the above reasons, I dismiss Metro’s claim.

18.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Ms. DuVernet was successful but did not pay CRT fees. I dismiss Metro’s claim for CRT fees. Neither party claims dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

19.   I dismiss Metro’s claims and this dispute.