Daza et al. v. Standard Immigration Services Date:, 2010 BCPC 49

Citation: Daza et al. v. Standard Immigration Services Date: 20100423 2010 BCPC 0049 File No: 0719292 Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ALEJANDRO DAZA, TERESA DAZA, AVD FOODS CANADA INC. CLAIMANTS AND: STANDARD IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND PERSONNEL PLACEMENT, INC. DEFENDANTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M. GIARDINI Appearing on their own behalf: Alejandro Daza, Teresa Daza Appearing for the Defendants: Marie Deitz, an officer of the company Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Hearing: February 25, 2010 Date of Judgment: April 23, 2010 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The claimants, Alejandro Daza, his wife Teresa Daza and AVD Foods Canada Inc. (referred to in these reasons as “AVD Foods”), filed a claim against Standard Immigration Services and Personnel Placement, Inc. (referred to in these reasons as Standard Immigration Services) on December 4, 2007. Their claim is for $3,600 plus other fees and disbursements for a total of $3802.50.

The claimants maintain they had an oral contract with Standard Immigration Services to air an advertisement during the course of a televised cooking show which was broadcast on Shaw Multicultural Channel. The claimants say they should have received payment of $200 a month for an 18 month period from January 2006 to June 2007. [ 2 ] The defendant acknowledges there was an oral agreement with the claimants to “swap” services.

Under this agreement Standard Immigration Services offered $1,800 worth of immigration services to the claimants in exchange for the claimants’ airing advertisements on the televised cooking show at the rate of $200 a month. Standard Immigration Services claims the oral “swap” agreement did not go beyond the $1,800 worth of services rendered by it on the claimants’ behalf.

Standard Immigration Services also maintains it did not receive confirmation of the placement of the ads or the period of time the ads were broadcast. [ 3 ] By way of counterclaim Standard Immigration Services claims payment of $2,999.99 for immigration consulting services and transcripts related thereto. The defendant asserts these services were provided on behalf of the claimants and consisted of the processing of immigration related matters for several persons. The total claim, including fees, is $3,149.99.

THE CLAIMANTS’ CLAIM Issues [ 4 ] The claim filed by the claimants raises the following issues: 1. Did the claimants and the defendant enter into a binding and enforceable contract? 2. If so, did the claimants broadcast the ads on the televised cooking show? 3. Did the defendant fail to live up to its part of the bargain by not “paying” for the services provided by the claimants? 4. If there was no enforceable contract are the claimants entitled to any compensation on a quantum meruit basis?

Evidence at trial [ 5 ] Alejandro Daza and his wife, Teresa Daza, gave evidence about the nature of their arrangement with Marie Deitz, an immigration consultant and an officer of the defendant. Mr. Harley Steubing, a video editor who worked in producing the cooking show on Shaw Multicultural Channel, gave evidence about the broadcasting of advertisements about Standard Immigration Services. Ms. Deitz gave evidence replying to the Dazas’ claim and advancing the defendant’s counterclaim. [ 6 ] Mr. Daza is the owner of AVD Foods which is the producer of a cooking show that aired on the Shaw Multicultural Channel.

The name of the show is “Cooking with Sandy”. The “Sandy” referred to in the show’s title is Mr. Daza. [ 7 ] As already noted, Ms. Deitz is an immigration consultant. She is an officer of the defendant Standard Immigration Services. [ 8 ] It appears, based on the testimony given at trial and the documents filed as exhibits, that Ms. Deitz and the Dazas had a professional and/or personal relationship dating back to 2004. On September 29, 2005, Ms. Deitz sent an email to Mr. Daza. The subject reference was “TV ad”. The email read as follows: Hi Sandy, Please check the attached ad for my immigration practice?

What do you think of placing this on your TV show? I would like to place this on October, November and December to prepare for free seminars in Manila. Can I ask you for a reduced rate of $200.00 per month? I would like to continue for next year. But I am not sure yet what format to place the ad on. The rest of the email dealt with the immigration related application of Mr. Anonuevo and will not be set out in these reasons. Mr. Anonuevo was seeking a work permit as a cook so he could work in a restaurant run by Mr. Daza. [ 9 ] Ms. Deitz sent another email to Mr. Daza on March 7, 2006. Ms.

Deitz attached what she referred to as “our latest ad” and asked Mr. Daza to: “change the ad asap on your tv show to reflect our seminar schedules every Wednesday for investors and Saturdays for general programs.” Ms. Deitz also asked Mr. Daza to tell Filippinos to ask their relatives to attend an exhibit (presumably in Manila). [ 10 ] In that email Ms. Deitz confirmed that her fee in relation to a live-in caregiver application for Ms. Irinco, who was to be a live-in caregiver for the Dazas, would be $1,500 US. Ms. Deitz reduced the fee by 50% from her regular $3000 US fee.

The March 7, 2006 email went on to state: In lieu of payment as we have discussed today, we can swap our tv ad payment of C $200.00 per month. Kindly let us know when our ads started so we can update our accounting records. Thanks for your business and all your referrals. [ 11 ] There is further reference to the advertisements and the payment arrangements in an email from Ms. Deitz to Mr. Daza sent July 2, 2006, (dated 7/1/06). In that email Ms. Deitz referred to the application of Ms. Irinco and noted that the application had been submitted to the HRSDC. At the end of that email Ms.

Deitz stated as follows: As per our oral agreement, our fee for this application is C $300.00 for the HRSDC and US $1,500.00 for the CIC application for Irinco in Manila. Payment will be in terms of swapping our ad placement for your show – Cooking with Sandy – which we pegged at C $200.00\week. (The word “week” was crossed out and the word “month” was handwritten on the hard copy of the email filed in court). Can you please let me know if you need another format for the ad to start this again? Please provide the times the ad has already run before. [ 12 ] On December 4, 2006, Ms.

Deitz submitted an application to correct the work permit of Mr. Anonuevo. In an email from Ms. Deitz to Mr. Daza dated December 6, 2006, subject “Correction of work permit for Wennie Anonuevo”, Ms. Deitz wrote:

Hi Sandy, As per our discussion, our fee for this correction of Wennie’s work permit is C $150.00. In lieu of payment, you can give us the equivalent of barbeque sticks which I will need for Dec. 23 for Standard’s office party. Is it possible for you to drop it by our place? Or do we need to pick it up? Should we have it sooner than Dec. 23? I am just waiting for the zip code of Wennie’s new address which is suppose to give me tonight. This completes the submission and it will be dropped at Hornby CIC office. Thanks, Marie Please confirm re bbq sticks. Please come too after your restaurant closes.

I ask Wennie to come since he is also part of Standard. [ 13 ] In early June 2007, two statements of account were sent to Ms. Deitz from AVD Foods. The events leading to the sending of the statement at that time are not clear. The two statements, dated June 4, 2007, refer to Shaw TV ads from the date of January 2006 to December 2006 and January 2007 to June 2007 inclusive. The description for each of the monthly entries is “SISPP Commercial/ Announcement”. The cost of the ads is shown as $300 per month. There is a credit for a $100 discount, so the balance for each month is $200.

There is also a deduction to the amount owing for the period of January 2006 to December 2006. That deduction is $62.54 for CAIPS notes and $430 for “WA work permit renewal”. [ 14 ] AVD Foods, under the signature of Mr. Daza and Mrs. Daza, sent a letter to Standard Immigration Services dated June 8, 2007. That letter referred to the two statements of account sent on June 4, 2007, and claimed an outstanding balance of $1,907.46, for the period of January 2006 to December 2006 and $1,200, for the period of January 2007 to June 2007.

The June 8 letter noted that monies owing by AVD Foods had been offset and AVD Foods no longer owed Standard Immigration Services any money. [ 15 ] Another letter, dated June 8, 2007, was sent to Standard Immigration Services under the signature of Mr. Daza. That letter advised Ms. Deitz that all agreements and services between Standard Immigration Services and AVD Foods were terminated immediately. The letter asked for the return of documents relating to Ms. Irinco and Mr. and Mrs.

Antonio Mendoza as those documents “were done through AVD Foods Canada Inc. and all authorization has been given to AVD Foods Canada Inc.” The letter also requested all documents regarding Mr. Anonuevo be returned. It thus appears that by early June 2007 the relationship between the claimants and the defendant had come to an end. [ 16 ] Mr. Daza in his testimony, which was general and non-specific, said there had been an agreement between him and Ms. Deitz, on behalf of Standard Immigration Services, that AVD Foods would air advertisements for the defendant at a cost of $200 a month.

This was $100 less than his standard rate of $300 a month. Mr. Daza said the advertisement was broadcast on TV during his cooking show. The broadcast consisted of a written ad and a voice-over announcement which he read. The voice-over consisted of the same information contained in the written advertisement. [ 17 ] Mrs. Teresa Daza testified that Standard Immigration Services had been given a discount when it placed the ads with AVD Foods. This was “a swap”. The discounted price given to Standard Immigration Services was $200. The swap by the defendant was to be the cost of immigration work for Ms.

Irinco’s immigration application. Mrs. Daza said the claimants gave a credit to Standard Immigration Services of $100 (i.e. $300 minus $200 = $100) for an 18 month period. Accordingly, Standard Immigration Services received $1,800 for the work it had performed on Ms. Irinco’s immigration application. Mrs. Daza said the claimants continued to give Standard Immigration Services the discount even though Standard Immigration Services did not finish the work on the Ms. Irinco’s file and they had to complete the work themselves. [ 18 ] In cross-examination Mrs.

Daza was asked why the claimants continued to run the advertisements once the $1,800 had been paid off. She stated it was Standard Immigration Services’ responsibility to let AVD Foods know when it wanted the advertisements removed. She said it was standard practice that clients were to inform AVD Foods when they no longer wished ads to run. [ 19 ] Ms. Deitz testified that she started her professional relationship with Mr. Daza in mid-2004 when he spoke to her about Ms. Irinco and the rejection of her application to immigrate to Canada. Ms.

Deitz said the discounted value of the work she did on the Irinco file, before she stopped working on it, was $1,350. [ 20 ] Ms. Deitz raised several points in her testimony about the advertisements. She said she neither received a hard copy of what the ads looked like nor a response when she inquired about what the ads would look like. Further, she said, the disc she was given showing the ads that were broadcast does not have any sound therefore she cannot tell if there was a voice-over. It appears the disc was provided in the course of this litigation. The further point Ms.

Deitz raised regarding the ads was that the television ads should have stopped when her involvement in the Irinco matter ended. Ms. Deitz said she was not informed that the advertisements continued to run until June 2007. [ 21 ] Mr. Harley Steubing was a video editor with the Shaw Multicultural Channel. He worked as an independent contractor for a number of companies to produce shows broadcast on the Shaw Multicultural Channel. He testified that he edited the show “Cooking with Sandy” for a fixed fee. Mr.

Steubing said ads for Standard Immigration Services were placed on the show which was broadcast twice per week. The ads ran from January 2006 to June 2007.

Legal Principles applicable to claimants’ claim [ 22 ] The central issue in this case is whether the claimants, or any of them, entered into an enforceable agreement with Standard Immigration Services regarding the advertisements aired on the Cooking with Sandy show and payment thereof. In addressing this issue, I will consider whether the elements necessary for the formation of a contract have been met. Those elements are: 1. The making of an offer – has an offer been made to enter into an agreement on certain terms? 2.

Acceptance of the offer - has each term of the offer been accepted by the other party either by words or by conduct? 3. Is there consideration – has one party given a benefit and has the other party suffered a detriment or loss? 4. Did the parties to the agreement intend to create legal relations? 5. Are the terms of the agreement certain and not vague? 6. Is the agreement complete – are there any terms left outstanding to be agreed upon later? [ 23 ] In every contract there must be a meeting of the minds about the essential terms. There can be no contract without a meeting of the minds.

The question to be asked is whether the reasonable observer, examining the exchanges between the parties, would conclude that a contract had been entered into, see: British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highway) v. Reon Management Services Inc. , [2001] B.C.J. No. 2500 (BCCA) . Further, the law is clear that the party who claims there has been a breach of an agreement has the responsibility of proving the terms of the agreement. Analysis of claimants’ claim [ 24 ] On the evidence the following has been established: (

a) The defendant provided immigration related services to the Dazas regarding Ms. Irinco’s application to be a live-in caregiver in their family. (

b) The defendant placed ads for her business to be aired during the claimants’ cooking show “Cooking with Sandy”. (

c) The defendant’s ads were aired on the show for a period of time. It is not clear whether ads were aired in 2005, when the defendant initially inquired, but I find as a fact that the claimants did air ads from January 2006 to June 2007. (

d) The payment for the ads was to be in-kind, namely, there was going to be an exchange of services. The claimants would air the defendant’s ads and the defendant would provide immigration related services on Ms. Irinco’s application. [ 25 ] While a method of in-kind payment was agreed to, the details of how the payment was to be credited and over what period of time were not at all clear. The defendant was of the view that the payment for the immigration services provided by Ms. Deitz on the Irinco matter was to be credited to the defendant at the rate of $200 per month.

If this view is correct, the defendant’s services (which Ms. Deitz valued at the discounted sum of $1,350), would have been paid off in approximately seven months. [ 26 ] On the other hand the claimants, according to Mrs. Daza, thought the payment for the defendant’s services was to be made by crediting the defendant with a $100 deduction from the regular $300 monthly rate normally charged for airing advertisements on the cooking show. If this was the case, it would have taken 18 months for the original quoted fee of $1,800 to be paid.

This raises the question: Why did the claimants not bill the defendant for the outstanding $200 monthly fee until June 2007? [ 27 ] In my view, a critical element of the agreement between the defendant and the claimants is, at best, vague.

There is no clear agreement as to how the exchange of services was to be credited between the parties or over what period of time the payment was to be made. [ 28 ] The documents entered into evidence during the trial make it abundantly clear that the claimants and the defendant are sophisticated parties who were able to place their understandings in writing, and did so in relation to other matters. The exchange of emails between the parties, however, is not clear about how the payment was to be effected.

More importantly, the parties did not address how long the ads were to be aired under the “swap” agreement. [ 29 ] In order to constitute an enforceable contract the parties must manifest their agreement to specific contractual terms. It is important that all essential terms of the agreement between the parties be settled. In this case one of those essential terms is how the in- kind payments were to be credited and over what period of time. It is clear, on the evidence, that the parties were going to “swap” services.

However, essential details of how the “swap” was to be completed are in dispute. [ 30 ] As in the case of Anderson v. Bullied , [2000] B.C.J. No. 529 , I am left with a situation where an essential term of the agreement between the parties is unclear. In that case the court wrote:: I am left with a situation where an essential or fundamental term of the contract between the parties is unclear. The court will endeavour to find that an agreement is definable and enforceable where ever possible: Anchorage Management Services Ltd. v. 465404 B.C. Ltd. et al, 1999 BCCA 771 (CanLII) , [1999] B.C.J.

No. 2976 , December 29, 1999 (B.C.C.A.) and Marquest Industries Ltd. v. Willows Poultry Farms Ltd. (1968), 1968 CanLII 581 (BC CA) , 1 D.L.R. (3d) 513 (B.C.C.A.) . The court cannot, however, enforce an apparent bargain where the terms are unclear: 3044098 B.C. Ltd. v. Garibaldi Whistler Development Co. Ltd. (1989), 1989 CanLII 2812 (BC CA) , 39 B.C.L.R. (2d) 328 (B.C.C.A.) . The test for enforceability is whether an objective bystander would say the parties have agreed based on what they have written in their contract. As articulated by Mr. Justice Hall in Anchorage Management Services Ltd. v. 465404 B.C.

Ltd., supra:

The law is clear that the test in this area must be what would an objective observer take the parties to have agreed to based on what they said or did. I suppose it could fairly be said that the corollary of that is that the objective observer should be able to, with some degree of confidence, stipulate what it is that the parties have agreed to do in order to determine if the alleged contract is enforceable. In other words, what could one order the parties to specifically perform in order to effectuate the alleged bargain?

In my view the brief statement that the term of the contract will be 21 days is not sufficiently clear to determine what the parties intended in regard to the number of hours of services. As a consequence, the contract is not enforceable. (para. 16) The above noted comments are applicable in this case, albeit there was no formal written contract.

I find that the “payment” terms were vague and as a consequence the contract is not enforceable. [ 31 ] Having found that the contract between the parties is not enforceable because the payment terms were vague, I will now consider whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation on a quantum meruit basis. In doing so I have been guided by the principles of restitution and unjust enrichment, see: G. H. L. Fridman, Restitution, 2nd ed. (Carswell 1992) pp. 285 to 292. It is clear that the defendant obtained a benefit by having advertisements aired on the Cooking with Sandy show over a period of 18 months.

It is also clear that the value of the “swap” of services that the defendant received for work on the Irinco file was at least $1,800. However, Ms. Deitz testified that the actual value of work performed on the file, before she stopped working on it, was $1,350. In the circumstances, I conclude it would be equitable and just for the defendant to pay the claimants the difference between the value of the ads broadcast ($1,800) and the value of the work on the Irinco file ($1,350). That difference is $450.

Additionally the defendant must pay pre- judgment interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act from May 22, 2008, when the default judgment was set aside, until the date of this judgment and post-judgment interest from the date of this judgment until the judgment amount is paid in full. The defendant is ordered to pay the claimants within 45 days of the date of this judgment. THE COUNTERCLAIM [ 32 ] The defendant, Standard Immigration Services, by way of counterclaim, claims that Ms.

Deitz performed immigration related services on behalf of the claimants relating to: Yolanda Irinco, Nora Daza and her cook, Mirabelle and Juan Antonio Mendoza and Stella Daza. The issue to be decided is whether there was an agreement between the defendant and the claimants, or any of them, regarding payment of the work performed by Ms. Deitz. I will deal with the evidence about each individual claim in turn. Evidence regarding counterclaim Yolanda Irinco [ 33 ] Ms. Deitz said she was asked to deal with Ms. Irinco’s immigration application to come to Canada. Ms. Deitz obtained authorization from Ms.

Irinco and then took various steps to obtain information about Ms. Irinco’s application from Canadian immigration authorities. Ms. Deitz said she also provided information to Mr. Daza about what would be required in order to process the Irinco application. In particular, in the summer of 2004, Ms. Deitz told Mr. Daza that Ms. Irinco would need to go back to school in order to meet the education qualifications under the live-in caregiver immigration program. Eventually, in late May 2006, Ms. Deitz began the process of securing a labour market opinion.

In June 2006, Deitz forwarded the Irinco application to Canadian immigration authorities to apply for a foreign live-in care-worker. [ 34 ] Ms. Deitz said she went as far as she could with the Irinco application. However, one of the prerequisites for sponsors is that they meet certain income requirements. Ms. Deitz said she was told by Mr. Daza that neither he nor his wife was employed at the time and had no proof of income. Ms. Deitz said the value of the work she had done on the Irinco matter was $1,350. [ 35 ] Further evidence relating to Ms.

Irinco’s application is set out under my review of the claimants’ claim. Nora Daza [ 36 ] Ms. Deitz testified that in March 2004, she had a telephone conversation with Mr. Daza regarding the possibility of sponsoring his mother, Nora Daza, as an immigrant. Ms. Deitz said Mr. Daza also wanted her to review the possibility of whether his mother could bring her cook with her as well. Ms. Deitz said this discussion took place at the same time she spoke to Mr. Daza regarding his mother. Other than Ms. Deitz’ own handwritten notes, on which she relied, there was no confirmation of any business arrangement between Ms.

Deitz and the claimants regarding payment for her work on the Nora Daza matter. When Ms. Deitz was asked in cross-examination why she was saying that Mr. and Mrs. Daza were responsible for fees in this regard, she noted that the sponsorship application had to start from Mr. and Mrs. Daza. She also said if she had not gotten the go ahead from Mr. Daza she would not have asked for certain documentation (CAIPS notes) from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Stella Daza [ 37 ] Ms. Deitz testified she did work for Ms. Stella Daza who is Mr. Daza’s sister.

It appears the work may have been related to a cook for Stella Daza’s restaurant. That work started in March 2004. Ms. Deitz suggested this was a referral from Mr. Daza but was independent from what happened later. She said two or three years ago Mr. Daza called her and asked her to kindly help his sister. She claims Mr. Daza told her, in that telephone conversation, that he would be responsible if his sister and brother-in-law did not pay. Mr. and Mrs. Mendoza [ 38 ] Mr. and Mrs. Mendoza are the parents of Mrs. Daza. Ms.

Deitz said she obtained certain documents (CAIPS notes) from Canadian Immigration and Citizenship Services. The amount outstanding for this service was approximately $53 US (CAD $62.54). [ 39 ] In response to the counterclaim, Mr. Daza agreed that, with respect to Ms. Irinco, Ms. Deitz had done partial work on the claim but she had not completed it. With respect to the other persons for which Ms. Deitz claimed fees for services, Mr. Daza said these persons were referrals he had made. At no time was there any discussion or agreement that he would pay for their fees.

Legal Principles applicable to counterclaim [ 40 ] The legal principles that apply to the defendant’s counterclaim are the same as those applicable to the claim. The defendant needs to establish there was agreement with the claimants, or any one of them, whereby they agreed to pay the cost of the services Ms. Deitz provided. There must be an offer and acceptance, consideration and evidence of agreement on the essential terms of the contract. Analysis regarding counterclaim The Irinco matter [ 41 ] I will first deal with the counterclaim in respect of work done on Ms. Irinco’s immigration application.

I reviewed the evidence regarding work performed on Ms. Irinco’s application in my analysis of Mr. Daza’s claim. As already noted the issue relating to payment for work on the Irinco matter was how the work was to be credited to the defendant and over what period of time. The evidence is clear that a “swap” of services was agreed to by the parties. The estimated cost of the defendant’s services was $1,800 (which was a discounted fee). Ms.

Deitz testified the value of work she actually did was $1,350, at the discounted rate. [ 42 ] I concluded that the payment terms were unclear and therefore the contract was not enforceable. However, notwithstanding that conclusion, it is clear that the defendant, in the circumstances, received the full value of the swap, if not more. I find that the defendant has received in-kind payment equivalent to $1,800 for work on the Irinco matter. Accordingly, the defendant’s counterclaim in this regard is dismissed.

Fees for other persons [ 43 ] I now turn to the defendant’s counterclaim for payment in relation to Nora Daza, Stella Daza and Mr. and Mrs. Mendoza. On the counterclaim the responsibility rests with the defendant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant and the claimants, or any one of them, entered into an agreement that the defendant’s fees for work on the immigration matters in question would be paid by the claimants. Having reviewed the evidence, I find the defendant has not established that there was an agreement by the claimants, or anyone of them, to pay the defendant’s fees. Ms.

Deitz asserted that such an agreement was in place. I find, however, that the assertions were not proven to the required standard. [ 44 ] The defendant, through Ms. Deitz, tendered several documents (including an April 13, 2007, scope of work letter and an April 13, 2007, addendum to consultancy agreement) which clearly show that as a certified immigration consultant Mr. Deitz, on behalf of the defendant, was: (

a) aware of the importance of documentation; (

b) had a practice of confirming the fees and scope of work in writing; and (

c) had such confirmation countersigned by the client. In fact, Ms. Deitz testified the normal way the defendant prepares a “consultancy agreement” is to put in writing the scope of the work and the fee to be charged. [ 45 ] I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimants, or any one of them, entered into an agreement with the defendant to pay fees relating to Nora Daza, Stella Daza or Mr. and Mrs. Mendoza.

Accordingly, I find that the defendant has not established there was a contract about the payment of those fees. [ 46 ] As I did with the claimants’ claim, I have considered whether the defendant should recover any quantum meruit compensation. I have concluded that the defendant is not entitled to an equitable remedy based on quantum meruit . There is no evidence before me that any of the claimants were unjustly enriched by the work performed by the defendant. CONCLUSION 1. The claimants and the defendant arranged to “swap” services.

The claimants aired the defendant’s advertisements and, in exchange, the defendant performed some immigration relation work for the claimants. However, the terms regarding the time frame of the in-kind payment and how it should be credited were unclear. Accordingly, the contract is unenforceable. 2. The claimants, however, are entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis in the amount of $450 plus pre-judgment and post- judgment interest on the terms set out in this judgment. 3. The defendant’s counterclaim against the claimants for work done on the Irinco matter is dismissed.

I find that the defendant, in fact, has been paid in-kind the equivalent of $1,800. 4. The defendant’s counterclaim against the claimants for other immigration related work is dismissed. The defendant is not entitled to payment based on quantum meruit. _______________________________ The Honourable Judge M. Giardini Provincial Court of British Columbia