McLeod v. North Shore Home Services Ltd. Date:, 2015 BCPC 454

Citation: McLeod v. North Shore Home Services Ltd. Date: 20150202 2015 BCPC 454 File No: 14-47969 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Small Claims) BETWEEN: GORDON CRAIG MCLEOD CLAIMANT AND: NORTH SHORE HOME SERVICES LTD. DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP L.A. KAHN Appearing on their own behalf: G. McLeod Appearing for the Defendant: T. Thompson Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Hearing: January 14, 2015 Date of Judgment: February 2, 2015 [ 1 ] The Claimant, Gordon Craig McLeod (“Mr. McLeod”), seeks damages arising from an oral contract primarily for the design and construction of 2 display models for the 2014 Vancouver Home Show. The terms of the contract, which was loosely described by each of the parties, established that the Claimant was to be paid $35 per hour, and that he would submit an interim invoice after he had completed the first display home or had completed approximately 40 hours of work.

The final invoice was to be submitted on the completion of the second display home. [ 2 ] The Defendant challenges the quality and the time required to complete the Claimant’s work. Troy Thompson (“Mr. Thompson”), who is the owner of the Defendant, testified that he incurred additional expenses to remediate the work done by the Claimant. [ 3 ] The Claimant and Mr. Thompson’s testimony reminded me of two young boys arguing in the school yard. Neither allowed the other to answer questions without interrupting, which made it very difficult for me to assess credibility. [ 4 ] What is clear is, as follows: (

a) The Defendant provided the Claimant with a display home that had been built for the 2013 Home Show, which was to be modified according to the contract between the parties. (

b) The Claimant was to build a second model home. (

c) The contract was based on an hourly rate of $35. (

d) Mr. Thompson understood that the cost of building the second display unit would be about 50% more than the cost of the 2013 display unit and, therefore, was expecting that part of the contract to be approximately $1,400 to $1,500. (

e) There was an additional task to complete certain display shelving units. There was little evidence about this shelving, apart from the Trial Statements, as most of the evidence concentrated on the display units. [ 5 ] The Claimant’s Trial Statement sets out, as follows: 5. Mr. Thompson did not provide me with any drawings or plans regarding the project. There was also no request for hour by hour task reporting. 6. We agreed that there would be two payments, the first payment would be after approximately 40 hours and the second and final payment would be received after the balance of work was completed. 7. Mr.

Thompson specified that I should submit my invoices on a Monday or Tuesday of a given week so I could be paid on the Friday of that week. [ 6 ] Mr. McLeod submitted his interim invoice on January 31, 2014 to Mr. Zavody, one of the Defendant’s employees. He was paid $1,365 on February 7, 2014. [ 7 ] The final invoice dated February 18, 2014 was for $1,487 or about 42½ hours at $35 per hour. It is this invoice that is unpaid. [ 8 ] I am satisfied that Mr. McLeod carried out the work. Although Mr. Thompson challenged Mr. McLeod with his time recordings and the time he incurred, Mr.

Thompson knew that approximately 40 hours were required for each of the display units. [ 9 ] However, Mr. McLeod billed for some time that was unnecessary, such as cutting wood at a local lumber yard, and some improperly installed wheels required for one of the displays to be more easily portable. [ 10 ] Where the evidence of the parties is divergent, I prefer the evidence of the Claimant, for the following reasons, which are not all inclusive: (

a) The invoices were similar to the time estimate expected by the Defendant to build each of the display units. (

b) The interim invoice was rendered and paid according to the terms of the contract explained by the Claimant. (

c) The overall quality of the display was not seriously challenged by the Defendant. (

d) The Claimant’s evidence was direct, organized, and consistent. (

e) The Defendant did not object to the quality of the work when the interim invoice was issued. Rather, he waited until the final invoice was rendered.

[ 11 ] However, there should be some adjustment to the second invoice. I have the Defendant’s Trial Statement to rely upon to determine what deduction should be made. Mr. Thompson spent approximately 23 hours to correct the Claimant’s work, and the Defendant paid $474 to other trades to make adjustments to the display units.

However, the Defendant’s time is not necessarily the measure to determine the payment due to the Claimant. [ 12 ] I award the Claimant $975, after deducting approximately $500 for the additional expense incurred by the Defendant. [ 13 ] Therefore, there will be Judgment, as follows: Damages $975.00 Corporate Search 33.42 Filing fees 100.00 Service fees 80.00 Total: $1,188.42 [ 14 ] Under the circumstances of this case, I decline to award pre-judgment interest. __________________________ Lawrence A. Kahn Adjudicator