Williams v. Life Studios Inc. Date:, 2013 BCPC 26

Citation: Williams v. Life Studios Inc. Date: 20130206 2013 BCPC 0026 File No: 1241139 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: JONATHAN WILLIAMS CLAIMANT AND: LIFE STUDIOS INC. DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP L. A. KAHN Appearing in person: Jonathan Williams Appearing for the Defendant: Christine Hanna and Jacob Wasef Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 9, 2013 Date of Judgment: February 6, 2013

[ 1 ] This matter came before me on January 9, 2013 pursuant to the Simplified Trial Rules under the Small Claims Act . Jonathan Williams (“Mr. Williams”) appeared in person and confirmed that the facts set out in his Trial Statement are true and accurate to the best of his knowledge. [ 2 ] Christine Hanna (“Ms. Hanna”) and Jacob Wasef (“Mr. Wasef”) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Ms. Hanna described herself as the owner. The Defendant did not file a Trial Statement. Mr. Wasef confirmed the accuracy of the facts in the Defendant’s Reply, which was filed on October 2, 2012. Mr.

Williams agreed that the Reply could stand as the Defendant’s Trial Statement. Accordingly, the case proceeded on that basis. [ 3 ] During the mediated phase of this matter, the parties agreed that $900 was the damages owed to the Claimant.

They also agreed that $2,450 was the damages for the camera and lens claimed in the Defendant’s Counterclaim. [ 4 ] When the parties could not settle responsibility for the damaged camera and lens, they agreed that the information provided during the mediation phase formed part of the evidence that I could rely upon to make a decision in this matter. [ 5 ] Life Studios Inc. makes videos primarily for weddings. It requires, from time to time, assistance from individuals such as Mr. Williams, who are hired on a contract basis, depending on the particular video project. [ 6 ] Mr.

Williams, while contracted by the Defendant, accidentally dropped the camera and lens causing damage to it. [ 7 ] The issue is whether or not Mr.

Williams is liable for the damages to the camera and lens. [ 8 ] The parties entered into a contract (the Claimant’s Trial Statement Document K, which is a 5 page document). [ 9 ] In the portion of the contract entitled “Background”, paragraph B provides: B The Service Provider will indemnify and hold harmless life Studios (sic) from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, penalties, punitive damages, expenses, reasonable legal fees and costs of any kind or amount whatsoever to life studios (sic) equipment or to the extent that any of the foregoing is proximately caused either by the negligent or wilful acts or omissions of the Service Provider or its agents or representatives and that are incurred or paid after the date of this Agreement and which result from or arise out of the Service Provider’s participation in this Agreement.

This indemnification will survive the termination of this agreement. (emphasis added) [ 10 ] Mr. Williams was the defined Service Provider. [ 11 ] There was some disagreement as to whether or not Document K was the contract for the subject video project. However, I accept the evidence of Mr. Wasef that this contract was identical in all respects, if there was a different contract, for the event Mr. Williams was contracted when the damage occurred. [ 12 ] The Defendant says that Paragraph B should be interpreted as confirmation that Mr.

Williams was responsible for the damages, even though the damage occurred by accident, and not by the negligent and wilful act of Mr. Williams. [ 13 ] According to the Black’s Dictionary of Law, 4 th Edition, “accidental” means, as follows: Happening by chance, or unexpectedly; taking place not according to usual course of things; casual; fortuitous. [ 14 ] The definition of “accidental” is different than “negligent” or a “wilful act”. Pursuant to paragraph B above, whether or not Mr.

Williams is liable must be determined upon the underlined portion of the paragraph B above. [ 15 ] The intention of paragraph B is for Mr. Williams to be responsible for the use of any equipment owned by Life Studios Inc., regardless if the damage was caused accidentally or by negligence. Mr. Wasef testified that it is customary within the industry that a sub-contractor, such as Mr. Williams, undertook that responsibility. I am not satisfied that this evidence is sufficient for me to conclude that it is customary for responsibility to be assumed in such a manner.

As noted above, my decision must rest upon the meaning of the underlined portion of paragraph B. [ 16 ] I conclude, and somewhat reluctantly, that the Defendant’s explanation is the one that makes sense. The underlined portion of paragraph B refers to Life Studios Inc.’s equipment. In my opinion, paragraph B would have little meaning if Mr.

Williams’ actions, because they were accidental, would absolve him of responsibility for the damages, based upon paragraph B and, in particular, the portion of the paragraph that follows “or” near the end of the 4 th line of paragraph B. [ 17 ] Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to damages of $2,450, less the monies owing to Mr. Williams of $900, which is a net of $1,550. [ 18 ] As there was divided success, neither party is entitled to filing fees or service fees. As well, under the circumstances, I decline to order pre-judgment interest. Accordingly, the total owing by Mr.

Williams to the Defendant is $1,550.

________________________ Lawrence A. Kahn Adjudicator