Date Issued: November 7, 2024

File: SC-2023-012065

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: L’Heureux v. Ragni, 2024 BCCRT 1137

Between:

BRENDAN L’HEUREUX

Applicant

And:

UMBERTO RAGNI

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kate Campbell, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about an engine heating system installed in a sailboat.

2.      Neither party responded to the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s (CRT’s) request to provide pronouns. So, I respectfully address both parties as “they” in this decision.

3.      The applicant, Brendan L’Heureux, paid the respondent, Umberto Ragni, to install an engine block heating system on the applicant’s sailboat. The applicant says the system never worked, and that coolant leaked from hoses the respondent installed. The applicant also says the respondent received an accidental overpayment of $398 due to a banking problem.

4.      In their final submission to the CRT, the applicant reduced the amount of damages claimed in this dispute from $2,657.97 the $1,821.25. Since the amount is lower, and the respondent had the opportunity to respond to the evidence about the adjusted damages claim, I find there is no procedural unfairness in allowing the reduced claim.

5.      The applicant now requests an order that the respondent pay them $1,821.25, made up of $1,122.00 that the applicant paid the respondent, $179.65 that the applicant paid another mechanic to assess the problem with the new system, and $519.60 lost on the subsequent sale of the boat due to the non-functioning heater.

6.      The respondent says they ran the heating system for about 20 minutes on the day they installed it, and it worked well. The respondent says the applicant called twice and said coolant was leaking and that the system did not work. The respondent says they were too busy to visit the sailboat for repairs, and instead gave the applicant some instructions about how to fix it. The respondent says they changed their cell phone number later that week, and did not hear from the applicant until the applicant filed this CRT dispute.

7.      The respondent admits they received a duplicate payment of $395 from the applicant. However, the respondent says the applicant verbally agreed to apply that extra $395 payment to cover the respondent’s labour costs, so the respondent is not obligated to return it.

8.      The parties are each self-represented in this dispute.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

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

10.   CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the hearing’s format, 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. 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.

11.   CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, even if the information would not be admissible in court.

12.   The respondent did not provide evidence in this dispute, other than their written submissions, although they were given more than one opportunity to do so.

13.   The applicant provided late evidence in this dispute. The respondent was given the opportunity to provide a submission on it, so I find it is procedurally fair to admit the late evidence.

ISSUES

14.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Was the respondent’s work negligent?

b.    If so, what remedies are appropriate?

BACKGROUND

15.   As applicant in this civil dispute, the applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities. This means more likely than not. I have read the provided evidence and submissions, but refer only to what is necessary to explain my decision.

16.   The evidence shows that on October 7, 2023, the applicant texted the respondent stating that they got the respondent’s number from an acquaintance, and wanted to hire the respondent to install an oil pan or coolant heater on their sailboat’s engine. The respondent replied that they were busy with a big job, but told the applicant to call and they “might be able to organize for a weekend.”

17.   Texts show that the respondent visited the sailboat on October 8. On October 11, the respondent emailed the applicant an estimate, with 3 different amounts depending on which pump the applicant wanted. The parties texted about the pump options, the applicant chose a pump, and then sent the respondent 3 e-transfers, totalling $1,122.

18.   The respondent installed the pump on October 15. After that, the applicant sent the respondent the following correspondence:

•         October 28 text – the applicant said they had tested the system on 2 different days, but it was not working. The applicant asked the respondent if they would be in the area to look at the problem.

•         October 28 text – the applicant said the coolant was now leaking.

•         November 1 text – the applicant asked if the respondent was available to come look at the problem.

•         November 8 text – the applicant asked the respondent to confirm that they would meet at the marina that evening.

•         November 8 email – the applicant said they had tried to call, but the respondent’s phone was not working. The applicant said the respondent had agreed to meet on November 2 or November 8. The applicant said the system had not been functioning as intended for over 3 weeks, and asked respondent to “confirm your plan.”

•         November 11 email – the applicant said the respondent had not returned to address the deficiencies, and had not contacted the applicant since November 5. The applicant gave 3 times they were available for the respondent to come to the sailboat, and said that if the respondent did not address the deficiencies by November 13 they would file a small claims action.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS

19.   The applicant says the respondent breached their contract by failing to install a working coolant heating system, as agreed.

20.   The respondent does not say the installed system works. Rather, the respondent admits they “haven’t been the most reliable technician with Mr. L’Heureux”, and says the applicant should have hired someone else. The respondent acknowledges that the applicant complained about the work, reported that it did not function, and requested that the respondent fix the problem. The respondent says they told the applicant they would install heavier duty hose clamps and reprime the coolant system, but did not do so. The respondent wrote, “I didn’t properly follow up with Mr. L’Heureux because I was overwhelmed.”

21.   Based on these admissions, and the evidence before me, I agree that the respondent breached the parties’ contract.

22.   Although there is no formal written contract between the parties, I find the parties agreed to a contract when the respondent emailed the estimate to the applicant, and the applicant provided the e-transfer payments for the work set out in the estimate. I find it was an implied term of that contract that the installed heating system would operate.

23.   As noted above, the applicant says the system never worked. The respondent did not dispute this, and instead speculated in their CRT submission that it might be because the “reclaimed” hose claims they installed may have failed.

24.   The applicant provided a November 15, 2023 invoice from Stem to Stern Mechanical (Stem). The invoice shows that the applicant paid Stem $179.65 to have a service manager come and diagnose the problem with the heating system. The service manager’s notes on the invoice confirm that the system did not work, and provide 2 possible reasons why. In a November 29, 2023 email to the applicant, the service manager wrote that it was a poorly designed system that was not well-executed, and was not functioning properly.

25.   Based on this evidence, I accept that the installed engine heating system did not work. So, the respondent breached the contract.

26.   The usual remedy for breach of contract is to put the party who suffered the breach in the position they would have been in if the breach had not occurred. Based on that principle, I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of the $1,122 they paid the respondent for the work. I find it does not matter whether or not the parties agreed that the mistaken extra $398 payment would go towards the respondent’s labour, as the respondent alleges. Even accepting the respondent’s version of events, this alleged agreement was made before the applicant knew the heating system did not work. Because the respondent breached the contract by providing deficient work, and failing to fix the deficiency, I find the applicant is entitled to full reimbursement of the amount paid.

27.   Since the respondent refused to attend to inspect or fix the work, despite multiple opportunities to do so, I find it was also reasonable for the applicant to hire Stem to inspect the heating system and see if it would work. So, I order reimbursement of $179.65 for Stem’s invoice.

28.   Finally, the applicant requests reimbursement of $519.60 lost on the sale of the sailboat. The applicant says they sold the sailboat in July 2024, and had wanted the engine heating system installed in order to prepare the boat to sell. The applicant provided a copy of a July 23 email from the sales broker, stating that there were 4 problems with the boat, including the wrong type of coolant hose to the hot water tank, with a leaking connection. The other 3 unrelated problems were about battery connections and a breaker indicator light.

29.   The broker’s email says the buyer was prepared to accept these deficiencies for a price reduction of $1,500 US. The applicant says that 1/4 of these deficiencies were about the engine heating system, so it is reasonable to attribute ¼ of the $1,500 US price reduction to the respondent’s deficient work. The applicant calculates this at $519.60 CDN.

30.   Based on the broker’s email, and the fact that the respondent admits that the system did not work and they failed to take any steps to fix the deficiency, I find it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant lost $519.60 on the sailboat’s sale price. I order the respondent to reimburse that amount.

31.   In conclusion, I allow the applicant’s claims. I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $1,821.25.

32.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find the applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $519.60 from July 30, 2024 (the date of the sailboat’s sale). This equals $9.16. I find the applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $1,122 paid to the respondent and the $179.65 paid to Stem from November 15, 2023 (the date of Stem’s inspection). This equals $65.00. So, the total pre-judgment interest is $74.61.

33.   As the applicant was successful in this dispute, under CRTA section 49 and the CRT’s rules I find they are entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses, so I order none.

ORDERS

34.   I order that within 30 days of this decision, the respondent must pay the applicant a total of $2,020.41, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,821.25 in damages,

b.    $74.61 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

35.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest under the COIA, as applicable.

36.   This is a validated decision and order. Under CRTA section 58.1, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the BC Provincial Court. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the BC Provincial Court.