Opti-Prop Land Development v. Pannu Date:, 2015 BCPC 231

Citation: Opti-Prop Land Development v. Pannu Date: 20150521 2015 BCPC 0231 File No: 21581 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: OPTI-PROP LAND DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS LTD. CLAIMANT AND: ROOP PANNU DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G.J. BROWN Appearing for the Claimant: No appearance Counsel for the Defendant: P. Loewen Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Dates of Hearing: March 23, 24, 2015 Date of Judgment: May 21, 2015 [ 1 ] THE COURT : These are my reasons for judgment in the file 21581, Opti-Prop Land Development Solutions Ltd. versus Roop

[ 1 ] THE COURT : These are my reasons for judgment in the file 21581, Opti-Prop Land Development Solutions Ltd. versus Roop Pannu. INTRODUCTION [ 2 ] The claimant, Opti-Prop Land Development Solutions Ltd. (Opti-Prop), is a land development consultant company. [ 3 ] On January 5th, 2012, Opti-Prop entered into an agreement (the original agreement) with the defendant, Roop Pannu, to manage the rezoning of Mr.

Pannu's property on Old Yale Road in Abbotsford, B.C. [ 4 ] The original agreement provided that the total services provided by Opti-Prop would be $12,000 to be paid in instalments of $3,000 at various stages. Opti-Prop alleges that the dates for the payments were not linked to any milestones and were there for ease of payment only. Mr. Pannu says the payments are linked to milestones. [ 5 ] Opti-Prop also asserts that there were "out-of-scope" services provided to Mr. Pannu regarding the potential purchase of a City road and these services remain partially unpaid. Mr.

Pannu maintains that there was no agreement, verbal or otherwise, for out-of-scope services. [ 6 ] Opti-Prop takes the position that in July of 2013, Mr. Pannu breached the original agreement and any other contract by hiring another development company to act as agent and by not paying the invoices. Opti-Prop also claims that Mr. Pannu delayed the rezoning process. Conversely, Mr. Pannu claims that Opti-Prop breached the original agreement by repudiating the contract in a letter dated July 21st, 2013. Mr.

Pannu then hired a new company to complete the rezoning work. [ 7 ] Overall, Opti-Prop seeks $6300 owing onto the original agreement, some $4,410 owing for out-of-scope work, plus interest and court fees. The defendant, Mr. Pannu, says he paid $12,005 without realizing he was being improperly invoiced. He says he has only received $2,400 in value under the original agreement so he seeks return of $9,605 plus court fees and the cost of an expert report. ISSUES [ 8 ] There are a number of issues to be decided in this case: 1.

In the original agreement, were the times for payment linked to milestones of performance or were they simply there for ease of payment? 2. Was there another contract for out-of-scope services? 3. Was there a breach of any agreement and, if so, by whom? 4. What are the damages for any breach? 5. What should the award be for court costs and the expert report? EVIDENCE OF THE CLAIMANT OPTI-PROP [ 9 ] Raymond Rewt is the principal of Opti-Prop, a company which provides consulting services regarding land development projects. Mr.

Rewt testified that he had been in the land development field some 28 years. [ 10 ] On January 5th, 2012, Opti-Prop entered into the original agreement with the defendant, Roop Pannu. Mr. Pannu owned a property at 30268 Old Yale Road, Abbotsford, B.C., and it was then zoned A1 Agricultural, although not in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The original agreement sets out that Opti-Prop would manage the entire process of rezoning Mr. Pannu's property to I2 Industrial. [ 11 ] Prior to the original agreement, there had been a meeting wherein Mr.

Pannu requested that Opti-Prop become his agent to carry out the rezoning with the City of Abbotsford and Opti-Prop, in fact, became the agent on signing of the original agreement. Also prior to the original agreement, there had been a "pre-application" meeting with the City. [ 12 ] As part of the rezoning, the original agreement states that Opti-Prop will negotiate with the City the location and design of a proposed new road to cross through Mr. Pannu's property.

The original agreement also had terms respecting Old Yale Road and whether it would be retained or not. [ 13 ] In addition to setting out the services to be provided by Opti-Prop, the original agreement set out a payment

schedule as follows: 1. Retainer upon acceptance of letter of engagement, $3,000 plus HST; 2. Upon receipt of first reading, $3,000 plus HST; 3. Upon receipt of third reading, $3,000 plus HST; 4. Upon receipt of fourth reading, $3,000 plus HST. The total fee for services was $12,000 plus HST and the retainer of $3,360, which included HST, was paid. [ 14 ] Mr. Rewt emphasized that the dates of payment were part of a payment plan and they were not milestones. The bulk of the work is done during the application process well prior to the submission of the development application to City Council for first to fourth readings.

[ 15 ] The work at the application stage includes environmental and engineering studies and many meetings and negotiations with City staff. According to Mr. Rewt, the majority of the work is done with the Planning Department in advance and the first to fourth readings are largely administrative in nature. [ 16 ] Mr. Rewt then testified as to all the work that had been done from early 2012 to August of 2012, as set out in tab B of Exhibit 1.

This included submitting the application for rezoning, communicating with the Engineering Department of the City, undertaking a topographical survey, obtaining an arborist's report and environmental report, and attending with the Habitat Review Board. Opti-Prop retains consultants, such as the arborists and environmental biologist but Mr. Pannu pays for these services directly. [ 17 ] Mr. Rewt attended a Habitat Review Board meeting because there was sensitive habitat adjacent to Mr. Pannu's property. There was a watercourse which typically required a 30-metre setback but Mr.

Rewt claims that he was able to negotiate a 15-metre setback. [ 18 ] Mr. Rewt also had to deal with a City fence requirement because Mr. Pannu had a temporary permit to park trucks on his Old Yale property which was close to the sensitive habitat. [ 19 ] There was no communication between Opti-Prop and Mr. Pannu between August 7th and October 2, 2012. Mr. Pannu wanted to stop any further proceedings, as he was unhappy with the 15-metre setback and fencing requirements from the Habitat Review Board.

Opti-Prop wrote a letter dated October 17th, 2012, setting out that the benefits far outweigh any negative with the original plan to rezone. A proposed road dedication was also discussed in the letter. Significantly, an invoice for $3,500 plus HST of $420 was enclosed and it was paid for by Mr. Pannu. [ 20 ] From Mr. Rewt's perspective, the development proposal was ready for first reading in August of 2012. However, it was Mr. Pannu's decision to stop the process.

For several months following October of 2012, no work was done on the development application. [ 21 ] On January 8th, 2013, Opti-Prop received a letter from the City of Abbotsford requesting a comprehensive site plan for the Old Yale Road property, which illustrated the roadway, amongst other things. The City also pointed out the temporary use permit allowing Mr. Pannu to use part of the property for industrial truck parking had expired and this parking operation would only be permitted to continue if the rezoning application continued forward. Opti-Prop advised Mr. Pannu of this situation, as Mr.

Pannu had put things on hold due to his concerns about the environmental setback. [ 22 ] Ultimately, Mr. Pannu instructed Opti-Prop to proceed and Opti-Prop did hire a civil engineer to prepare a site plan which included the road dedication. The site plan was approved in May of 2013. Mr. Rewt also indicated that he was negotiating development cost charge credits for the benefit of Mr. Pannu. [ 23 ] Mr. Rewt testified that the rezoning application was for a second time ready for first reading with City Council at the end of August 2013. It was Mr.

Rewt's evidence that Opti-Prop had been working on this application from January of 2012 until the summer of 2013, pursuant to the terms of the original agreement, except for a period when Mr. Pannu put things on hold. [ 24 ] Mr. Rewt then gave evidence as to what he referred to as "out-of-scope services", i.e., services outside the parameters of the original agreement. In April 2013, the City of Abbotsford contacted Opti-Prop about closing a

section of Old Yale Road and there was an inquiry as to whether Mr. Pannu wanted to buy the City land. Mr. Rewt maintained that any work on the purchase of this land was outside the scope of the original agreement, and there was a verbal understanding that Opti-Prop would be charging Mr. Pannu $300 an hour for these out-of-scope services. [ 25 ] Opti-Prop's e-mail correspondence with the City of Abbotsford sets out Mr. Pannu's interest in purchasing the Old Yale Road property in May of 2013.

The City had to ensure that another adjacent owner had an opportunity to purchase part of Old Yale Road but the adjacent owner declined that opportunity. Mr. Rewt was emphatic that all services related to the potential purchase of Old Yale Road were outside the rezoning application work. Opti-Prop sent an invoice to Mr. Pannu on May 28th, 2013, for $4,725, including GST, for the Old Yale Road closure and sale work and that invoice was paid. [ 26 ] By late June of 2013, Mr. Pannu was expressing concern about the purchase of Old Yale Road. Mr.

Pannu felt there was no advantage in purchasing the full width of the road when the City required that half of the road be made available for public use. [ 27 ] In an e-mail dated July 2, 2013, Opti-Prop confirmed the instructions not to proceed with the Old Yale Road purchase and a further invoice of $2,835 was enclosed and that invoice was never paid. [ 28 ] By way of an e-mail dated July 2, 2013, Mr. Pannu expressed disappointment with the two Old Yale Road invoices. He had wished the fees had been discussed up front. Mr.

Pannu asked for the services on Old Yale Road to stop and he would negotiate himself with the City. In an e-mail July 3rd, 2013, Mr. Rewt explained the services provided respecting the $2,835 invoice. I note that on July 4th, 2013, Mr. Pannu advises by e-mail that he is only stopping work on the Old Yale Road sale; he wished the rezoning application to continue. He confirmed he paid the first Old Yale Road invoice but he felt he only owed money for a 45-minute meeting. [ 29 ] On July 21st, 2013, Mr. Rewt sent Mr.

Pannu an e-mail which certainly demonstrated a deterioration in the business relationship between Opti-Prop and Mr. Pannu. Mr. Pannu and his purported brother were now suggesting that they represented a corporation. Mr. Pannu was also meeting with the City directly. Mr. Rewt indicated that he would not proceed further with the rezoning until his final invoice was paid in full. He further stated that he had absolutely no interest in representing Mr. Pannu in any matter now or in the future.

The last invoice included the $2,835 already mentioned plus a further $1,575, including GST, respecting Old Yale Road, plus $6,300, including GST, allegedly owing under the original agreement. [ 30 ] Mr. Rewt testified that he was never notified that Opti-Prop was not the agent for Mr. Pannu and he never removed Opti-Prop as agent in dealings with the City of Abbotsford. Opti-Prop takes the position that the original agreement was breached in several ways. First, Mr. Pannu did not pay outstanding invoices; secondly, Mr.

Pannu had no right to advise the City that Opti-Prop was no longer their agent; finally, Opti-Prop wrongfully hired Wilder Engineering to complete the rezoning work. There was also some suggestion that any

delays were the fault of Mr. Pannu. [ 31 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Rewt admitted that he drafted the original agreement on behalf of Opti-Prop. He also conceded that Mr. Pannu had paid the original retainer of $3,360 plus a further $3,920 and then the $4,725. The $2,835 invoice had not been paid. [ 32 ] In the e-mail of July 21st, 2013, Opti-Prop was demanding the balance owing under the original agreement notwithstanding there was no first reading. Again, Mr. Rewt stated that the majority of work was done prior to first reading and he felt he had staff approval for the rezoning. In cross, Mr.

Rewt indicated that it was a grey area as to whether the rezoning could proceed without working out the Old Yale Road purchase. The rezoning application was not contingent on purchasing Old Yale Road. [ 33 ] Pursuant to an e-mail dated July 3rd, 2013, Mr. Rewt did say that he would consider business completed with respect to the development application and the additional road closure and other negotiations in which he had been involved for the last one-and-a-half years once he received the cheque for $2,835. [ 34 ] Respecting the letter of October 17th, 2012, Mr. Rewt stated that he was requested by Mr.

Pannu to make further inquiries of Envirowest but Mr. Pannu wanted the rezoning process to stop or at least be put on hold. THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT RUPINDER (ROOP) PANNU [ 35 ] Mr. Pannu is in the trucking business and he owns 30268 Old Yale Road with his brother. He wanted to rezone the property from A1 to I2 to allow for truck parking and possibly a warehouse. Notwithstanding that the property is A1, he pays a high rate of taxes equivalent to the industrial rate. [ 36 ] Mr. Pannu read and signed the original agreement. Looking at the fourth bullet on page 1 of the original agreement, Mr.

Pannu understood that the retention of Old Yale Road would be part of Opti-Prop's negotiations with the City of Abbotsford. Mr. Pannu provided Opti-Prop with the original $3,000 retainer plus $360 in HST. [ 37 ] Respecting the October 19th, 2012, invoice for $3500 and $420 in HST, Mr. Pannu said that his accountant questioned the invoice after it had been paid. It was $500 too high and it was billed prior to first reading. According to Mr. Pannu, Mr. Rewt stated that he needed the money and $500 would be credited to the next instalment. [ 38 ] Respecting the May 28th, 2013, invoice for $4,725, Mr.

Pannu paid that as well but his accountant then questioned the $300 per hour notation. [ 39 ] Mr. Pannu never paid the July 2, 2013, invoice for $2,835, as he had not received a proper accounting for the earlier invoice of $4,725. [ 40 ] Mr. Pannu then received the July 21st, 2013, e-mail and his impression was Mr. Rewt was not happy and was demanding some $10,710 in total. [ 41 ] Insofar as the Old Yale Road purchase was concerned, Mr.

Pannu was initially interested in buying the whole road; however, he learned that he could not fence this particular property because of a requirement that at least part of the property be for public use. Mr. Pannu questioned the $4,725 invoice showing 15 hours of work, given that he believed Mr. Rewt only met twice with the City on that matter. [ 42 ] In July 2013, Mr. Pannu made it clear he wanted Opti-Prop to stop any work concerning Old Yale Road but he wanted Opti- Prop to continue with the rezoning (see his e-mails of July 2 and 4, 2013). He received Mr.

Rewt's e-mail of July 3rd, 2013, and assumed Opti-Prop was finished with him. [ 43 ] After receiving Mr. Rewt's e-mail of July 21st, 2013, wherein he said Opti-Prop had absolutely no interest in representing Mr. Pannu, Mr. Pannu retained Wilder Engineering on an hourly basis. The first reading of the zoning bylaw affecting his property took place on March 31st, 2014. Third reading occurred on April 14th, 2014. However, the rezoning application is now stalled due to the money required for a land deal and the new need for a traffic study. [ 44 ] Mr.

Pannu also retained Wilder Engineering to prepare an expert report dated January 2, 2015. Essentially, that report opines that the typical cost to complete a rezoning application of this type for staff review would be $2,400. Mr. Pannu also denied that he was having difficulty with the City of Abbotsford concerning another property. He had the proper building permit concerning this other property but he did have negotiations over a road-widening. [ 45 ] Mr. Pannu further denied any collateral agreement to the original agreement. Also, in 2012, Mr. Pannu reiterated that he did not tell Mr.

Rewt to put the rezoning on hold because of environmental setback issues. Mr. Pannu had his own negotiations with the City in that regard. [ 46 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Pannu again admitted to paying the October 19th, 2012, invoice for $3500 plus HST, but he later marked his contract to show that the next $3,000 instalment should be only $2500 rather than $3,000 because the October 19th invoice was $500 too high. [ 47 ] In cross, Mr. Pannu said he did pay the May 28th, 2013, invoice for $4,725 but his accounting department later questioned that invoice.

He did not analyze the invoice until after it had been paid. ISSUE 1 - THE DATES FOR PAYMENT IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT [ 48 ] The January 5th, 2012, original agreement set out a payment schedule: $3,000 plus HST on signing, $3,000 plus HST on first reading, $3,000 plus HST on third reading and $3,000 plus HST on fourth reading. Were these times for payment linked to milestones of

performance or were they simply there for ease of payment? [ 49 ] I take into account the following factors. Opti-Prop drafted the original agreement with this payment

schedule and, therefore, to a large extent, Opti-Prop must abide by the markers for payment and it bears the risk of underbidding for any particular marker for payment. That said, Mr. Pannu is an experienced businessman and he paid $3500 plus HST when first reading had not been achieved. His accountant, however, later advised him that this payment in October of 2012 was not in accordance with the original agreement. [ 50 ] I conclude that, in large part, the payment markers are linked to performance. In other words, $6,000 plus HST is proportionate to the work to be undertaken by Opti-Prop to first reading.

However, I also accept that a lot of Opti-Prop's services were front-end loaded. The work prior to first reading includes not only the development application but also coordinating a topographical survey, arborist's report and environmental report. When I factor these services in, I conclude that the $6,000 in fees to first reading can be read to mean "close to first reading without necessarily having completed first reading". In my view, that

interpretation accords with the activities undertaken by Opti-Prop and the conduct of Mr. Pannu when paying the second instalment early. ISSUE 2 - OUT-OF-SCOPE SERVICES [ 51 ] Was there a separate contract for out-of-scope services? Mr. Rewt of Opti-Prop says there was a verbal agreement to deal with the purchase of Old Yale Road at the rate of $300 per hour. Mr. Pannu says there was no such agreement. [ 52 ] I conclude there was no contract for out-of-scope services. Mr.

Rewt was very careful to set out the original agreement, in writing, with the fees explicitly shown, yet there was no written agreement or even a letter drafted setting out the fee structure for the Old Yale Road purchase. I appreciate that Mr. Pannu paid the one invoice of $4,725, but he later indicates his disappointment with the Old Yale Road closure invoices in his July 2, 2013, e-mail. In his July 4th, 2013, e-mail, Mr. Pannu responds to Mr. Rewt's e-mail by telling him to stop any work on the Old Yale Road sale.

He says he has paid the majority of Opti-Prop's time for the Old Yale Road work but he is simply responding to the bill sent. I must look at the original agreement to see if these services are covered there. [ 53 ] In my view, the original agreement covers the services which had been billed as "out-of-scope". Again, Mr. Rewt drafted that agreement. Contra proferentem applies. In the original agreement, the fourth bullet reads as follows: The City has yet to determine whether to retain Old Yale Road. This matter will form part of our negotiation with the City.

It will prove beneficial to you if the road is closed, as it would provide an increase in your Lot 1 land area along the current Old Yale Road frontage. [ 54 ] Clearly, this clause contemplates that Opti-Prop would be dealing with Old Yale Road and the possibility of its purchase in the original agreement. I also note that page 2 of the original agreement says that Opti-Prop was to "manage the entire process of achieving the needed rezoning through to fourth and final reading". The services included all negotiations with City staff.

This was a flat rate contract. [ 55 ] In conclusion to this issue, Opti-Prop ought not to have billed separately for the Old Yale Road proposed purchase and, in any event, a second verbal contract has not been proven on a balance of probabilities. ISSUE 3 - BREACH OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT [ 56 ] Opti-Prop alleges that Mr. Pannu breached the original agreement in a number of ways: by non-payment, by delay and by retaining a new development company as agent with the City of Abbotsford. I must disagree. As to Mr.

Pannu's alleged non-payment, I have already found that he was not required to pay for out-of-scope services. Even if there was an out-of-scope services contract, the breach there cannot be linked to the original agreement. As for the original agreement, there was no non-payment because Mr. Pannu even paid the second instalment when first reading was not actually achieved. [ 57 ] Any possible delays caused by Mr. Pannu do not constitute a breach of the original agreement. There was a stall in the late summer of 2012 and following because Mr. Pannu was concerned about the environmental setback, but Mr.

Pannu ultimately had Opti- Prop proceed with the site plan and the rezoning process continued. As to any delay caused by the Old Yale Road negotiations, I note that in the e-mail dated July 4th, 2013, Mr. Pannu clearly indicates that he is not stopping Opti-Prop on the rezoning application. [ 58 ] As to the hiring of another development consulting company, Mr. Pannu only takes that step after receiving Mr. Rewt's e-mail of July 21, 2013. I have concluded that it is Opti-Prop who repudiates the original agreement by writing that e-mail. [ 59 ] In the July 21st, 2013, e-mail, Mr. Rewt indicates that Mr.

Pannu has arbitrarily cancelled the original agreement without cause. The prior e-mail from Mr. Pannu dated July 4th, 2013, does no such thing. Mr. Pannu has no objection to Opti-Prop carrying on with the rezoning. Mr. Rewt's letter also references failure to pay and I have dealt with that above. What Mr. Rewt's letter does accurately say is that Opti-Prop has "absolutely no interest in representing you and your corporate interests in any matter now or in the future". [ 60 ] In cases such as Dosanjh v.

Liang , [2015] BCCA 18, our Court of Appeal has confirmed that words such as "will not proceed with this contract" constitute a repudiation of the contract. Mr. Rewt's words on behalf of Opti-Prop are as strong, if not stronger. Opti- Prop has repudiated the contract. [ 61 ] The next legal consideration is whether Mr. Pannu accepts the repudiation or affirms the contract. It is clear that Mr. Pannu accepts the repudiation by hiring Wilder Engineering to carry on with the rezoning application. In Norfolk v.

Aikens , 41 BCLR (2d) 145, our Court of Appeal at para. 80 quotes from Lord Simon who ruled a party may: ...'accept the repudiation,' by so acting as to make plain that, in view of the wrongful action of the party who has repudiated, he claims to treat the contract as at an end, in which case he can sue at once for damages.

[62] In this Small Claims case, Mr. Pannu makes it plain to Mr. Rewt of Opti-Prop that he is accepting the repudiation by hiringWilder Engineering in place of Opti-Prop. ISSUE 4 - DAMAGES [63] Mr. Pannu is entitled to damages to be assessed at the time of repudiation, i.e., July of 2013. [64] Mr. Pannu also has no further obligation to pay under the original agreement. I refer to para. 40 of Guarantee Co. of NorthAmerica v.

Gordon Capital Corp., (SCC), 178 DLR (4th) 1, if a non-repudiating party accepts the repudiation, thecontract is terminated, and the parties are discharged from future obligations. [65] Based on that analysis, Opti-Prop's notice of claim must be dismissed. They are not entitled to any balance owing under theoriginal agreement and I have found they are not entitled to any amounts for purported out-of-scope work. [66] The issue is Mr. Pannu's damages.

He has paid a total of $12,005 to Opti-Prop.: $7,280 including taxes under the originalagreement and $4,725 including taxes for purported out-of-scope work. [67] Wilder Engineering gave an opinion that $2,400 is the typical cost to complete a rezoning application for staff review. Hence,Mr. Pannu is seeking damages of $12,005 less $2400 which equals $9,605. I note that Mr. Pannu has paid Wilder Engineering$6,983.44 to get the rezoning application to third reading and obstacles still remain to conclude the rezoning. [68] In my view, the value of Opti-Prop's work is something greater than $2400.

The Wilder Engineering opinion was that $2400would be the typical cost to complete an application for submission to City staff, but they acknowledge that these costs do not includeadditional meetings, review, negotiations and costing, which may be required to achieve an agreement on conditions of rezoning. Theyalso noted that there was previous coordination work completed by Opti-Prop with respect to the environmental consultant's report andthe arborist's report and for the habitat review.

Wilder Engineering could not measure Opti-Prop's level of effort for this work. [69] I also note that Wilder Engineering is not a wholly-independent expert; they are the very firm carrying on with the rezoningwork for Mr. Pannu.

I am not suggesting that the opinion is anything less than professional but it may have slightly less weight due tothis circumstance. [70] Taking into account that Opti-Prop did do a lot of coordinating work that may not be reflected in the $2,400 and that it alsocarried out the Old Yale Road negotiation, I conclude that the value of Opti-Prop services is $6,000 inclusive of taxes. [71] I also note that in Exhibit 2, the City staff were supporting the application to rezone as early as April 2012 but subject to manyconditions.

I am of the view that the rezoning application was fairly close to first reading when the original agreement was repudiated. Consequently, the measure of damages for Mr. Pannu is as follows: $12,005 paid less $6,000 services received equals $6,005 indamages. I note the $6,005 exceeds the sum Mr. Pannu paid for out-of-scope services and it compensates him for some overpayment inthe original agreement. ISSUE 5 - COSTS AND EXPERT REPORT [72] Looking at Rule 20(2) of the Small Claims Rules and related case law, I have found that Mr.

Pannu was successful in thedefence of the claim and, to some large degree, his counterclaim. It was prudent that Mr. Pannu retain an expert as to the typical feescharged for a rezoning application for submission to municipal staff. The expense there is not unreasonable. I looked at the invoices of$724.50 plus $294 plus $714.63 and I came to a total of $1,733.13. I did not wholly adopt that report so I am prepared to award a portionof the expense to prepare the report. I also note again that the expert was a company carrying on work for the defendant. Mr. Pannu isentitled to $800 for the expert report.

RULING [73] Opti-Prop's notice of claim is dismissed. [74] In the counterclaim, Mr. Pannu shall be awarded $6,005 in damages plus court costs and service fees. He shall be awarded$800 for the expert report. Court-ordered interest on his award is to be calculated from August 1st, 2013. G.J. BROWN Provincial Court Judge