Watershed Water Conditioning Ltd. v. Balish, 2023 NSSM 70

SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Watershed Water Conditioning Ltd. v. Balish , 2023 NSSM 70 Date: 202308 21 Docket: 523100 Registry: Halifax Between: The Water Shed Water Conditioning Limited Claimant - and - Shea Balish Defendant REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER Adjudicator : Eric K. Slone Heard : Via zoom on August 18, 2023 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Appearances : For the Claimant, Christine Murray, counsel For the Defendant, self- represented BY THE COURT :

[ 1 ] The Claimant supplied a water treatment system to the Defendant in November 2022, at an agreed cost of $4,197.50. [ 2 ] The Defendant has refused to pay, believing that he should receive a discount in light of some things that he is not happy about concerning the installation. [ 3 ] The equipment supplied consisted of a Greensand Filter and an Arsenic/Uranium Softener. The installation of this equipment required the removal and disposal of a salt-based filter system.

One of the Defendant’s complaints was that a small pile of salt was dumped on his back pathway, which appears to have been done by mistake while removing the salt tank. The Defendant said he did not know what this substance was, but once he determined that it was salt he dug a hole and buried it. [ 4 ] Another of his complaints is that upon coming home after the installation his UV filter system was beeping, and apparently malfunctioning. He suspects that the Claimant’s installer, Nick Fitzgerald, did something to it while re- plumbing it during the installation of the new tanks.

The Defendant simply unplugged the IV filter and plans to replace it at some point in the future. [ 5 ] The Defendant’s third complaint was that Mr. Fitzgerald did not thoroughly flush out the household water pipes with the result that the water was discoloured with what appeared to be potassium permanganate, which can be harmful to health if ingested. In fact, the Defendant’s stepdaughter did drink a bit before it was noticed. There is no evidence that this water made anyone sick.

The Defendant’s solution was to let the taps run for a couple of hours until the water completely cleared. [ 6 ] All of this was noticed by the Defendant on the day of the installation, November 4, 2022, yet he did nothing to bring it to the attention of the Claimant until almost four weeks later when they contacted him about the overdue invoice. The Claimant has offered on several occasions to return to the Defendant’s home and correct whatever may be wrong.

The Defendant has refused. [ 7 ] The Defendant did not test the allegedly contaminated water; nor has he tested the water at all since the Claimant put in the new equipment. He mostly avoids drinking it, though he concedes that it is probably safe. [ 8 ] The Defendant believes that he is entitled to a reduction of as much as $1,500.00 in light of these issues. [ 9 ] These are my findings: a. The Claimant did the work in good faith and is entitled to be paid, unless some provable damages resulted from errors made. b.

There is no satisfactory proof that the Claimant damaged the IV unit, and moreover the Defendant did not give the Claimant an opportunity to return and try to remedy it. c. Mr. Fitzpatrick should have been more careful in removing the salt equipment, but no real harm was done. Had the Defendant called the Claimant he likely would have been reassured that the substance was innocuous. d. It would have been better had Mr. Fitzpatrick thoroughly flushed the system, or at least left instructions for the Defendant to do it himself.

This led to unnecessary stress and concern, but in the result the Defendant did the right thing by letting the taps run until the water was clear. The child was apparently not sickened, and it is some measure of the minor nature of this event that no medical attention was sought. [ 10 ] It is a mystery to me why the Defendant failed to report these issues to the Claimant immediately, giving them a chance to

make good (as best they could). I believe a reasonable person would have done so.

This could have mitigated any alleged damage, at least in part. [ 11 ] In the result, I believe that the Defendant is contractually bound to pay for the work and materials supplied by the Claimant, without deduction. [ 12 ] As a token reflection of these concerns, I decline to award the Claimant any prejudgment interest. [ 13 ] The claim for general damages by the Claimant has no basis in the facts, and moreover a corporation cannot experience things, such as stress, that give rise to general damages. [ 14 ] The Claimant will accordingly have judgment against the Defendant for the following amounts: Debt $4,197.50 Cost to issue $99.70 Cost to serve $166.85 $4,464.05 ORDER [ 15 ] The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of $4,464.05.

Eric K. Slone, Small Claims Court Adjudicator