Citation: Nicadian Enterprises v. Linterman 2019 BCPC 296 Date: 20191018 File No: 170473 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: NICADIAN ENTERPRISES INC. CLAIMANT AND: NADINE LINTERMAN c.o.b.a. JUST BOOKKEEPING DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L MROZINSKI Appearing for the Claimant: M. Mendez Appearing on her own behalf: N. Linterman Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Date of Hearing: August 26, 2019 Date of Judgment: October 18, 2019 I.

Introduction [ 1 ] In this Small Claims action, the claimant, Nicadian Enterprises Ltd. (“Nicadian”) seeks to recover monies paid to the defendant, Ms. Nadine Linterman (c.o.b.a. “Just Bookkeeping”) for bookkeeping services.

[ 2 ] Nicadian is a small business owned by Mr. Miguel Mendez. Nicadian operates two businesses: Tillicum Laundry and Drycleaning and Prestine Cleaning. For several years, Nicadian had its bookkeeping and accounting done by its accountant, Mr. Verne Burden. Mr. Burden, and his firm, charged for bookkeeping at the rate of $50 per hour. In early 2017, both Mr. Burden and Mr. Mendez agreed that it would be more cost effective for Nicadian to hire a bookkeeper to do its day-to-day work, while retaining Mr. Burden’s firm to carry on with Nicadian’s accounting work. To that end, Mr. Burden recommended Ms.

Linterman to Mr. Mendez. Mr. Burden knew Ms. Linterman and trusted her work. [ 3 ] All parties agree that the bookkeeping services provided by Ms. Linterman, who billed out at $40 per hour, should have cost Nicadian less than the bookkeeping services provided by Mr. Burden. Still, just over four months after retaining Ms. Linterman, Mr. Mendez was of the firm view that Ms. Linterman was actually more expensive. He fired Ms. Linterman, and refused to pay the last of her five invoices. Mr. Mendez is convinced that Ms.

Linterman overbilled Nicadian for her bookkeeping services, and in some instances, billed for services not provided. [ 4 ] Mr. Mendez seeks to recover some of the money Nicadian paid to Ms. Linterman. While he acknowledges Ms. Linterman for some of the time billed on her final invoice, Mr. Mendez seeks to set this amount off by the monies he maintains Ms. Linterman overcharged him in her previous four invoices. [ 5 ] Ms. Linterman submits she billed Nicadian for every hour worked, and provided all of the bookkeeping services billed.

She has filed a counterclaim seeking payment in full on her final invoice to Nicadian. II. The Issue [ 6 ] The issue in this case is whether Nicadian has proven on balance that the services billed for by Ms. Linterman were either not provided, or the bills themselves were duplicative, excessive or unreasonable in all the circumstances. III. Background [ 7 ] At issue in this trial are five invoices totalling $9,058 for just over four months of bookkeeping services. [ 8 ] At the material time, Nicadian employed seven people. The nature of Nicadian’s two dry cleaning businesses is obvious and uncomplicated.

What complicates matters for Nicadian is that its revenue is generated and accounted for on a sort of piece meal basis; that is to say, whether the customer is an institutional client, such as a hotel, or an individual client, every item cleaned is charged and accounted for individually. It is both complicated and time consuming. [ 9 ] Mr. Burden testified that Nicadian’s business necessarily made the accounting complex because of the sheer number of transactions involved. [ 10 ] By May 2017, when Nicadian retained Ms. Linterman to take over the bookkeeping functions previously performed by Mr. Burden, Mr.

Burden’s firm had wrapped up Nicadian’s books for the year 2016. It forwarded to Ms. Linterman all of Nicadian’s paper work, including billings or transaction receipts, bank records, and so forth from January 2017. Ms. Linterman’s task was to organize the material, and do all of the necessary bookkeeping for January to May as well as to continue Nicadian’s bookkeeping on a go forward basis. [ 11 ] Ms. Linterman testified that the materials she received were voluminous and highly disorganized. Mr. Burden does not contradict this, though he was unable to clarify one way or the other. Still, Mr.

Burden acknowledged knowing that the task for Ms. Linterman was “going to consume a fair amount of time.” He described it as “catch up accounting” which had some urgency to it. Mr. Burden also acknowledged that his firm was spending quite a significant amount of time on Nicadian’s bookkeeping, and it could not bill Nicadian for all of the time it spent on the company’s bookkeeping. Referring the matter to Ms. Linterman would have come as somewhat of a relief. [ 12 ] From receipt of his first invoice from Ms. Linterman, Mr. Mendez was concerned about the cost. Ms.

Linterman’s bill seemed high, certainly relative to the costs for similar services invoiced by Mr. Burden. [ 13 ] Mr. Mendez expressed his concern to Ms. Linterman who assured him that her month-to-month costs would decrease once the upfront work was complete. Ms. Linterman takes the position that Mr. Mendez fired her before she was able to catch up on the January to May accounting, and was thus unable to bring her costs down. [ 14 ] Ms. Linterman’s August invoice to Nicadian for bookkeeping services included a charge for six hours accredited to payroll for August 16 to 31.

Even bearing in mind the services described, Mr. Mendez found the charge outrageous. He compared it to earlier invoices from Mr. Burden whose firm charged no more than one hour for payroll for seven employees. [ 15 ] Mr. Mendez decided that he wanted to fire Ms. Linterman. After consulting with other accounting firms, he became concerned that if he did so, it might be difficult to get his company’s financial materials back. The evidence in no way suggests that Ms. Linterman did or said anything to give rise to this concern; rather, I accept it is a view formed by Mr. Mendez and one on which he acted.

To avoid a possible struggle over the return of his company’s financial information in Ms. Linterman’s possession, Mr. Mendez advised Ms. Linterman that he wanted to give the work to a friend of his who was in town temporarily, and who would provide bookkeeping services for half the cost of Ms. Linterman. He asked Ms. Linterman if she might help train that person. The person Mr. Mendez said was going to do the work was Ms. Devica Barnes, a bookkeeper with some three decades of experience, who ultimately did take over Nicadian’s books. [ 16 ] The pretence failed to the extent that Mr.

Mendez had to involve police before he got his company’s financial information back from Ms. Linterman. At the same time, there is no evidence Ms. Barnes was in on the deception. Rather, I accept that Ms. Barnes was recommended to Mr. Mendez, that she took the job as bookkeeper and that once she took the job, she too formed the opinion that Ms. Linterman’s invoices were too high. For the most part, Mr. Mendez’ case turns on Ms. Barnes’ evidence concerning Ms. Linterman’s

bills. [ 17 ] Ms. Barnes is, as I have noted, a bookkeeper of some considerable experience. At present, Ms. Barnes is self-employed. Over her career, she has worked in a number of accounting firms and at least one law firm. [ 18 ] Ms. Barnes assisted Mr. Mendez in the preparation of his case by preparing a detailed critique of each of Ms. Linterman’s five invoices. The critique is entered as Exhibit 2 in this trial. [ 19 ] The evidence given by Ms. Barnes, both in her testimony and in Exhibit 2, is clearly opinion evidence in an area in which she has considerable expertise. I accept that Ms.

Barnes is a well-experienced bookkeeper. She is, I find, qualified to assist the Court by giving an opinion regarding the accuracy and necessity of various items of work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Linterman. [ 20 ] Throughout her cross examination of Ms. Barnes, Ms. Linterman put various suggestions to Ms. Barnes concerning her association with Mr. Mendez, and her work at a law firm Mr. Mendez may have associated with at one time. The line of questioning was somewhat difficult to follow but I will accept that Ms. Linterman was exploring the possibility of bias on the part of Ms. Barnes.

In my view, the line of questioning was ultimately unfruitful. I find no evidence that would discredit Ms. Barnes’ opinion evidence on the grounds of any previous association with Mr. Mendez or any firm with which he associated. [ 21 ] I am mindful, naturally, that Ms. Barnes does now work for Mr. Mendez. However, I do not find her evidence to be unreliable as a result. There is no evidence that Ms. Barnes in any way benefitted financially by bringing to Mr. Mendez’ attention her view of Ms. Linterman’s invoices – views he already held in any event. Certainly, Ms.

Barnes does benefit from the continued relationship and I was mindful of that as she testified. Still, I saw nothing in her testimony that would lead me to conclude Ms. Barnes shaped her opinions for that reason. Fundamentally, Ms. Barnes was concerned, as a long experienced bookkeeper, that Mr. Mendez was distinctly not getting value for his money. [ 22 ] As previously noted, Ms. Barnes created a detailed critique of each of the invoices submitted by Ms. Linterman to Nicadian.

I propose to approach my reasons in the same manner; that is, to review each invoice individually bearing in mind all of the evidence, commencing with Ms. Linterman’s first invoice dated May 31, 2017. IV. The Invoices

a) Invoice No. 17-776 [ 23 ] Ms. Linterman issued this first invoice totalling $1,501.50 on May 31, 2017, within two weeks of receiving and reviewing Nicadian’s file materials. Though Ms. Linterman has recorded various work on various days, the invoice consists largely of time spent organizing the files and building a chart of accounts. [ 24 ] Ms. Linterman records spending 10 hours to finish what she describes as the first box of materials from January to April, composed of daily sheets and expenses for Prestine and Tillicum cleaners. [ 25 ] Ms. Barnes takes issue with the time Ms.

Linterman alleges she spent on either task. Moreover, Ms. Barnes pointed to two instances where Ms. Linterman billed twice for work billed for earlier in the invoice. [ 26 ] With respect to the timing issue, Ms. Barnes testified Ms. Linterman could not possibly have spent 10 hours sorting through one box of material, particularly as all of the material associated with Nicadian’s account that she received from Ms. Linterman, was contained in one banker’s box, divided into some 15 file folders. Ms. Barnes estimated it might have taken Ms.

Linterman approximately 2.5 hours to do the work for which she billed 10 hours. [ 27 ] I accept that Ms. Barnes is qualified to give an opinion with respect to certain aspects of the bookkeeping business. Still, the difficulty with much of Ms. Barnes’ testimony regarding the quality or efficiency of Ms. Linterman’s bookkeeping is, as Ms. Barnes stated, the fact that there is no industry standard. [ 28 ] The bookkeeping business, as I understand the evidence, requires no certification, though certainly there are courses available. No governing body regulates the bookkeeping business.

There is no accreditation, and there are no governing standards. [ 29 ] I do not doubt the sincerity of Ms. Barnes’ views of Ms. Linterman’s work product. I accept also that even in an industry with no standards, there will be instances where the work product is so obviously faulty, or an invoice so obviously inflated, it will be apparent payment is not due and owing. Short of that standard, it would be difficult in this case to find services were not provided properly or at all based only on the time it would have taken one bookkeeper to provide a service relative to another. [ 30 ] In respect of Ms.

Linterman’s Invoice No. 17-776, Ms. Barnes takes issue with the time charged for organizing Nicadian’s materials. It may well be, as Ms. Linterman testified, that she is simply very slow. That must certainly be the case relative to Ms. Barnes, but perhaps not to others also in the business. Moreover, in this case, Ms. Barnes does not know the state of the material as it arrived at Ms. Linterman’s office. The only evidence on that point is Ms.

Linterman’s testimony that the material was contained in three boxes, and was highly disorganized. [ 31 ] On balance, I am unable to conclude on the evidence before me that Ms. Linterman’s bill for 10 hours related to organizing Nicadian’s materials constitutes an overbilling. [ 32 ] I am satisfied, however, as Ms. Barnes pointed out, that Ms. Linterman did double bill Nicadian for services in her Invoice No. 17-776. As Ms. Barnes indicates in her

summary of this invoice, Ms. Linterman billed four hours for time spent on May’s daily sheets on May 29. She includes this item as work performed again on May 30, when the entry on May 17 indicates the daily sheets for January to May were completed.

[ 33 ] On May 30, Ms. Linterman invoiced 8.5 hours for finishing the dailies, sales sheets, customizing the chart of accounts, calling the accounting firm for banking information and uploading banking statements and information. As noted, Ms. Linterman had already billed Nicadian for her work on the daily sheets. That would leave 8.5 hours for uploading bank statements and a call to Nicadian’s accounting firm. In my view, this is one of those instances where it is obvious the work could not have taken this long. I have no difficulty accepting Ms. Barnes’ evidence that uploading the statements would take minutes.

A call to the accounting firm lasting more than minutes would be unusual even for Ms. Linterman. [ 34 ] It follows from this that I do not accept Ms. Linterman’s testimony that she billed for every hour that she worked. It is clear that Ms. Linterman double billed in this invoice and did not work all of the hours for which she billed Nicadian. [ 35 ] I find Ms. Linterman overbilled Nicadian for four hours of work on May 29 and for eight hours of work on May 30, 2017. As such, I would deduct 12 hours from Ms. Linterman’s Invoice No. 17-776.

b) Invoice No. 17-783 [ 36 ] By invoice dated June 30, 2017, Ms. Linterman billed Nicadian for a total of $2,677.50, inclusive of GST. In this invoice, Ms. Linterman billed for 2.5 hours on June 5, 2017, allegedly further to a bank reconciliation statement that Ms. Barnes maintains was not done. While insisting she did do the work, Ms. Linterman was unable to demonstrate that fact despite having submitted voluminous materials. For this reason, I would deduct the 2.5 hours for this charge on this invoice. [ 37 ] Ms. Linterman charged Nicadian 13.5 hours on June 9 and 10, for work on Nicadian’s payroll account. Ms.

Barnes testified that she received a copy of the payroll account from Nicadian’s accounting firm. It was, she testified, already set up. Ms. Barnes explained that what Ms. Linterman had billed nearly 14 hours for was to import one employee into the program. Ms. Barnes estimated that would take an hour. [ 38 ] There is, on balance, sufficient evidence in this trial to support Ms. Barnes’ view that Ms. Linterman overbilled for this item. Mr. Mendez testified that his accountant, Mr. Burden, charged one hour for payroll. It shocked him to see Ms. Linterman’s bills for this same service.

While I acknowledge there is no industry standard in the bookkeeping business, I accept that Ms. Linterman is unlikely to have spent 13.5 hours on a task it takes others one hour to complete. Even assuming Ms. Linterman works slowly, this charge is inflated. I would reduce this charge by 11 hours, assuming it might have taken Ms. Linterman 2.5 hours to do the same work others in her business are able to accomplish in one hour. [ 39 ] Invoice No. 17-783 charges 2.5 hours for a meeting with Mr. Mendez. Even though Ms.

Barnes takes issue with the time charged, she has no knowledge of the actual timing of the meeting. Mr. Mendez offers no evidence to contradict this charge. [ 40 ] For the days June 19 and 20, Ms. Linterman charged a total of 15 hours to “merchant accounts online.” As she explained in her testimony, her practice is to investigate and review data from her client’s online sales records against its bank records, to assure herself that funds were not being stolen. Ms. Linterman took this investigation back to January 2017 forward.

She testified to spending a lot of time getting access to Nicadian’s online banking, as well as its Visa account. [ 41 ] Ms. Barnes was unfamiliar with this practice and testified that much of it appeared unnecessary, including Ms. Linterman’s practice of printing statements that were otherwise stored online. Mr. Burden testified that another person in his office handled this reconciliation of the merchant accounts. He agreed that there was always a question whether there was theft or fraud. In my view, his testimony supports Ms. Linterman’s practice. Moreover, Mr.

Burden also agreed it was his practice or tendency at least to print statements and so forth as he found it easier to work with paper copies. [ 42 ] Given this evidence, I find Nicadian has not shown, on balance, that Ms. Linterman’s charges related to her work on the so- called merchant accounts are inflated. [ 43 ] Ms. Linterman billed Nicadian for seven hours on June 26 and June 27 for work described as “invoicing, June, print old invoices January to May, request missing information.” On June 30, Mr.

Linterman billed Nicadian for another 1.75 hours for “invoicing June last week to-date and May 28 th cut-off from previous months, update current invoicing & print-out remaining Jan-May invoices, backup copies, package, PDF files, set-up July.” [ 44 ] In her testimony, Ms. Linterman pointed to pages 525 through to page 555 of Exhibit 1 in this hearing as supporting her charge of at least 14 hours of work. While, again, I accept there are no industry standards in this business, I find it inconceivable reviewing this material that Ms.

Linterman could have spent 14 hours working through the various invoices, let alone the nearly 29 hours she charged for much of this work. In my view, the evidence supports Ms. Barnes’ observation that Ms. Linterman charged twice for seven hours of invoicing for June, followed by a charge of 14.5 hours for much the same work. I find firstly that the charges on June 26 and June 27 are duplicative. In the result, I will deduct seven hours from this invoice on this ground. Additionally, there is no probable justification for the 14.5 hours claimed for much the same work on June 30.

I would reduce this charge by 10 hours, leaving approximately 4.5 hours on June 30 for the other work charged for by Ms. Linterman. [ 45 ] For the reasons set out above, Invoice No. 17-783 is reduced by 30.5 hours.

c) Invoice No. 17-788 [ 46 ] On July 31, 2017, Ms. Linterman billed Nicadian for bookkeeping services totalling $2,457. [ 47 ] In this invoice, Ms. Linterman invoiced Nicadian for four hours work on July 4 and another six hours on July 8, 2017. She described as ‘processing invoices for June and then subsequently January through to May into the SIMPLY accounting program’. As was the case for much of her invoicing, Ms. Linterman did not have a clear recollection of the work involved. However, she testified that as she considered these entries, it suggested that she had done the invoicing work for these months, but had not entered the data into SIMPLY.

[ 48 ] Ms. Barnes is strongly of the view that the June work should have been part of the June invoicing, while the January to May work should have taken 1.25 hours at most. Again, this objection goes largely to Ms. Linterman’s working style. Relative to Ms. Barnes’ standards, the work is slow and poorly organized. However, in the absence of an industry standard, I am unable to find on balance that Ms. Linterman improperly charged for this time or this work. [ 49 ] I am convinced, based on Ms. Barnes’ evidence, that Ms.

Linterman’s charge on July 13 for 1.5 hours of work involving sorting and receiving accounting paperwork is not a proper charge. I accept her evidence that this activity cannot be segregated from work billed for general accounts receivable or accounts payable duties. I agree also that Ms. Linterman’s invoices for work done on Nicadian’s accounts payable and daily sheets in the January to May 2017 period are duplicative of work previously invoiced. [ 50 ] Ms.

Linterman billed nine hours on July 25 for work described as “invoicing 3 rd week/adjust/add to previous, A/P package march – June PC & TC start entry, misc & backup.” As Ms. Barnes notes, Ms. Linterman also billed 8.5 hours between July 17 and 18, and much of it for invoicing. Moreover, in her May invoice, Ms. Linterman claimed to have finished the January to April daily sales sheets and expenses for both Tillicum and Prestine. There is no justification for further billing for March or April. [ 51 ] Ms.

Barnes gave evidence that it took her approximately 45 minutes to process the accounts payable for both the Tillicum and Prestine cleaners. Accepting that Ms. Linterman works slowly, it is highly improbable that she would have worked nine hours to process the accounts payable for May and June, as well as finish up the third week of invoicing for June. In my view, Nicadian has shown on balance that this bill is excessive. [ 52 ] I am prepared to allocate 3.5 hours for the work Ms. Linterman claims was done on July 25, 2017. I base this on her bill for similar work on July 18, 2017.

As such, I would reduce the nine hours billed on July 25 by 5.5 hours. Ms. Linterman is entitled to compensation for 3.5 hours of work on July 25. [ 53 ] Ms. Linterman billed for 6.5 hours on July 29 and for seven hours on July 30 for work related to Nicadian’s February and March accounts. I agree with Ms. Barnes’ testimony that all of this work was previously invoiced. Ms. Linterman testified that she simply went back through the February and March dailies when time permitted and billed for the same. This testimony is inconsistent with Ms. Linterman’s own invoices that indicate the work was done.

Moreover, this is not a case of Ms. Linterman grabbing a few moments to work on some old invoices. Ms. Linterman has billed for two solid days of work. Work that in my view had already been invoiced and paid for by Nicadian. [ 54 ] For these same reasons, I would deduct the hours charged for July 29 and 30 totalling 13.5 hours. In total, I find Ms. Linterman overcharged for services in Invoice No. 17-788 by 20.5 hours.

d) Invoice No. 17-794 [ 55 ] It is this invoice, dated August 31, 2017, which so completely shocked Mr. Mendez by what appears to be a charge for payroll services totalling six hours – that he set about firing Ms. Linterman. In this invoice, Ms. Linterman charged Nicadian a total of $1,785, inclusive of GST for bookkeeping services. [ 56 ] The first entry, dated August 4, 2017, is odd as it appears to be too low and cannot be accurate. In this entry, Ms.

Linterman charges 3.5 hours under the description “Finish invoicing for August.” Clearly, as the later entry on August 22 evidences, the invoicing for August was not and could not have been finished on August 4, 2017. It is more evidence of the lack of care taken by Ms. Linterman in her billing. [ 57 ] Ms. Linterman billed eight hours for work on August 12 related to Nicadian’s daily sales sheets for March. I agree with Ms. Barnes that this work, as well as the work billed for on August 17 related to March, is duplicative of work previously invoiced. [ 58 ] Still, for this entry on August 12, Ms.

Linterman is entitled to compensation for work done on the July and August invoices. As before, Ms. Barnes gave evidence that such work might take as much as 1.5 hours. I am prepared to allocate Ms. Linterman two hours for that work. As such, given my comments above, I would reduce the hours charged for the August 12 entry by six hours. The August 17 entry relates only to March. It is duplicative and should not have been invoiced. The seven hours Ms.

Linterman charged for work on August 17 will be deducted from this invoice. [ 59 ] The entry for work billed on August 22 includes not just work previously billed for – which is duplicative and must be deducted from the invoice – but also for work done on the payroll for August, including adding a new employee. Overall, Ms. Linterman billed for six hours work on this day. [ 60 ] In her July invoice, Ms. Linterman billed 1.5 hours for payroll. As I have noted, the evidence in this case is that payroll generally takes one hour. Acknowledging Ms.

Linterman’s own evidence that she “may not be the fastest out of the gate”, I am prepared to assume Ms. Linterman spent at least 1.5 hours on payroll in August. As the work involved the addition of a new employee, and bearing in mind Ms. Barnes’ own evidence that this task could take as much as 30 minutes, I would credit Ms. Linterman with three hours work on August 22, and deduct the remaining three hours claimed in the invoice for work done on that day. [ 61 ] Finally, in the entry for August 31, 2017, Ms.

Linterman invoiced Nicadian eight hours for work described as “backup copies, package, PDF files, misc. bkup.” Ms. Linterman never addressed this charge. Ms. Barnes testified that she backed up her client’s accounts every time she went into them and the process took approximately 30 seconds. Even assuming Ms. Linterman was going back over all of her electronic files, and these are not numerous, the work as described could not have taken eight hours. [ 62 ] In my view, the hours charged for the work described on August 31 are wildly inflated. It is more evidence that Ms.

Linterman’s testimony that “there was not one minute of overbilling” simply holds no water. Assuming that the work described on August 31, 2017 involved Ms. Linterman turning her mind to the file, and retrieving various files electronically or otherwise, I am prepared to allocate no more than two hours to the charge for work done on that day. The remaining six hours be deducted from this invoice.

[ 63 ] For the reasons given, I find Nicadian has proven, on balance, that Ms. Linterman overcharged the company in Invoice No. 17- 794 by 22 hours.

e) Invoice No. 17-800 [ 64 ] This is Ms. Linterman’s final invoice and includes work associated with packing up Nicadian’s files consequent to her firing. In this invoice, dated September 25, 2017, Ms. Linterman invoiced Nicadian a total of $1,090.90. Unlike the other invoices, Nicadian has refused to pay any portion of this invoice, though it acknowledges owing some of the fees charged. [ 65 ] While I would not, for the reasons already given, discount any of the charges on this invoice on the grounds the work could have been done differently, or faster, I do accept Ms.

Barnes’ testimony that some of the work charged for was either simply not done, or was unnecessary given what was not done. [ 66 ] In this regard, I refer to the entries for September 12, 18, and 25, 2017. [ 67 ] Ms. Linterman billed Nicadian for eight hours work done on September 12. The work described includes payroll for August 1 to 15, time spent downloading bank statements and time allocated to resetting a password. While Ms. Barnes questioned why the payroll work for the first two weeks of August did not appear in the August invoice, and again questioned Ms.

Linterman’s efficiency, these are matters of work style or performance. What I accept however is Ms. Barnes’ evidence that because Ms. Linterman did not do any bank reconciliations, it was not necessary to download bank statements, nor was it necessary to access online data information. Moreover, Ms. Barnes testified that Ms. Linterman had allowed Nicadian’s online access to the 1 st Data file to lapse. As such, Ms.

Linterman could not have reset the password though she billed Nicadian for the work. [ 68 ] The difficulty is in extracting the time spent on payroll from the other work claimed, but which was either not done, or was unnecessary. On July 28, 2017, Ms. Linterman billed 1.5 hours for payroll for July 9 to the 22. I have determined that for the August 16 to 31 payroll, Ms. Linterman was entitled to claim three hours, which factored in the entry of the new employee. Here, there is no new employee. Bearing in mind the evidence that generally payroll takes about one hour, I find Ms.

Linterman could have spent no more than two hours on this work. Ms. Linterman charged for eight hours on September 12. For the reasons given, I find Nicadian has shown on balance that Ms. Linterman overcharged the company by six hours on that date. [ 69 ] Ms. Barnes testified that Ms. Linterman charged a total of 8.25 hours on September 18, 2017, for work described as accounts payable for both Tillicum and Prestine cleaners, which was simply not done. There is no evidence to the contrary. I find Nicadian has shown on balance that Ms.

Linterman should not have charged for this work. [ 70 ] Finally, with respect to the entry on September 25, for 2.5 hours for work described as “office information needed, CRA update, change address”, I accept Ms. Barnes’ evidence that while Ms. Barnes sought Nicadian’s CRA/GST access code, that request was denied by Ms. Linterman. There is no justification for a charge of 2.5 hours under this work description. [ 71 ] For the reasons given, I find Ms. Linterman’s invoice, dated September 25, 2017, must be reduced by 16.75 hours. [ 72 ] In Invoice 17-800, Ms. Linterman billed for 25.75 hours.

When the overcharges are taken into account, Ms. Linterman remains entitled to be paid for nine hours. At the rate of $40 per hour, Nicadian still owes Ms. Linterman $360 on Invoice 17-800, plus $18 GST, for a total of $378. However, this amount will be offset by amounts owed by Ms. Linterman to Nicadian as follows: Invoice No. Overcharged Hours Overcharged Fees 17-776 12 $480 17-783 30.5 $1,220 17-788 20.5 $820 17-794 22 $880 17-800 16.75 $670 Total overcharge fees owed to Nicadian - $4,070, plus GST of $203.50 for a total of $4,273.50. When the monies owed to Ms.

Linterman on Invoice 17-800 in the amount of $378, inclusive of GST, are subtracted from this total, Ms. Linterman still owes Nicadian $3,895.50, inclusive of GST. V. Nicadian’s Claim for General Damages [ 73 ] In addition to claiming a refund for monies overpaid pursuant to Ms. Linterman’s various invoices, Nicadian also seeks general damages in the amount of $5,000, and damages in the amount of $870 related to Invoice No. 17-800. I will discuss that latter claim below.

With respect to the claim for general damages, Nicadian was ordered to particularize this claim on or before March 9, 2018 by Order of the court dated February 20, 2018. At the time of trial, though there was mention the claim related to the costs of repairing some of Ms. Linterman’s errors, the claim was not particularized. In the result, I would dismiss the claim for this head of damages. [ 74 ] Nicadian also claimed damages in the amount of $870 as just noted.

As became apparent at trial, this was little more than a concession by Nicadian that it accepted it owed at least $168, plus GST in the amount of $8.45 on Ms. Linterman’s final invoice, Invoice No. 17-800. Nicadian maintains it does not owe for the remainder of the invoice and, as noted, submits that whatever it does owe should be set off against any amount this Court might find Ms. Linterman overcharged Nicadian. [ 75 ] I have dealt with Nicadian’s claim regarding Invoice 17-800 in the reasons above. Those reasons address not only Nicadian’s claim, but also Ms.

Linterman’s counter-claim which was partially granted, although offset entirely by the money I find she must repay to Nicadian. VI.

Summary

[ 76 ] For the reasons set out above, I find Ms. Linterman must refund to Nicadian a total of $3,895.50, inclusive of GST, in respect of payments made by Nicadian to Ms. Linterman for services invoiced but not provided. [ 77 ] If the parties are unable to agree on a payment schedule, they are at liberty to set the matter down for hearing. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge L. Mrozinski Provincial Court of British Columbia