Landmark v. Goodrich Date:, 2011 BCPC 193

Citation: Landmark v. Goodrich Date: 20110728 2011 BCPC 0193 File No: 10-33598 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: LANDMARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORP. CLAIMANT AND: GOODRICH REALTY INC. DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP L. A. KAHN Appearing for the Claimant: Briner Dhillon Appearing for the Defendant: Donna Louie and Amarjit Dhaliwal Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 22, 2011 Date of Judgment: July 28, 2011 [ 1 ] This matter came before me on June 22, 2011 pursuant to the Simplified Trial Rules under the Small Claims Act .

Background [ 2 ] Goodrich Realty Inc. (“Goodrich”) made a tender for the cleaning contract at $225.00 per clean. Landmark Building Maintenance Corporation (“Landmark”) rejected the offer and Goodrich made a further tender at $175.00 per clean. Landmark says that this was accepted by Goodrich, although there is no evidence of that having occurred from the documents provided in the Claimant’s Trial Statement. Nonetheless, the cleaning commenced in May 2010. [ 3 ] Goodrich terminated Landmark’s services in August 2010.

During that time, for a reason that seems to do with office administration, Landmark did not send an account to Goodrich. [ 4 ] After they were terminated, Landmark sent accounts based on $175.00 per clean. Goodrich made several payments, but also made deductions from the amount that was billed by Landmark.

None of the witnesses for either party were able to explain the calculations on the invoices, the calculations of the payments made, nor the deductions that were made by Landmark. [ 5 ] The parties agreed that the amount in dispute is $2,362.50, plus $100.00 for filing fees, and $22.40 for service fees, for a total of $2,484.90.

[ 6 ] The invoices issued by the Claimant for May 2010 to August 2010 were a total of $6,174.00. The Defendant paid $3,800.52, which leads to the shortfall of $2,362.50 as noted above. [ 7 ] As a result of the lack of evidence provided by either of the parties, I am left to resolve the rate of each clean. [ 8 ] The Defendant complained about the standard of the cleaning services. On one occasion, the Defendant contacted the representative of Landmark about the lack of cleaning supplies in one of the bathrooms.

A witness for Goodrich testified there were more complaints and that the level of cleaning was sub-standard, all of which resulted in the termination of the cleaning contract. Based upon the evidence as presented, I am not satisfied that the Defendant has established on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant’s standard of cleaning was deficient. [ 9 ] It seems to me that the contract between the parties could be terminated at any time.

There was nothing to suggest otherwise in writing. [ 10 ] Also, I am not prepared to accept the evidence of the Defendants that the amount Landmark was charging exceeded industry standard, as no independent evidence was provided to support that claim. [ 11 ] The difficulty that I have with the Claimant’s evidence is that there is nothing in writing to support the contention that Goodrich agreed to pay $175.00 per clean. [ 12 ] The Claimant is entitled to compensation for the work they completed during May 2010 to August 2010.

As I am not satisfied there was confirmation of $175.00 per clean, I will order that the Defendant pay 80% of the outstanding amount being, $2,362.50 x 0.80 = $1,890.00. The Defendant received cleaning services for 4 months, did not formally object to the level of services provided, and made payment on account, albeit on a reduced basis. The Claimant is entitled to their filing fees ($100.00) and their costs ($22.40). The total judgment is $2,012.40. [ 13 ] As this dispute arose from difficulties associated with determining the rate per cleaning, I will not award pre-judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest will run from the date of the hearing, namely, June 22, 2011. ____________________ Lawrence A. Kahn