Amanda Gallais - v. -, 2018 SKPC 19

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2018 SKPC 019 Date: March 19, 2018 File: 2017-14 Location: Melfort _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Amanda Gallais - and - Christie McIvor carrying on business as Hot Peppers Amanda Gallais For the Plaintiff Christie McIvor For the Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT I. J.

CARDINAL , J _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] The defendant entered into a verbal agreement with the plaintiff to rent a commercial building from her in Nipawin, Saskatchewan. Both parties agreed that the rent to be paid was $800.00 per month, due on the first of the month. Both agreed the lease started on July 1, 2014 and ended when the defendant moved out of the building without notifying the plaintiff, on or about February 17, 2017.

[ 2 ] The trial commenced on July 12, 2017. Both parties called evidence. I took the unusual step of encouraging them to discuss the matter further as evidence of much common ground was presented during the trial. After a short adjournment, they indicated they had come to a resolution and requested time for a payment

schedule to be completed. Consequently, I adjourned the trial to accommodate the potential resolution and I specifically adjourned the trial for continuation, if the intended resolution failed to be implemented. [ 3 ] Unfortunately, the parties were not able to resolve the matter to their mutual satisfaction, and the trial continued with argument on January 11, 2018.

While the parties did mention the amount of their intended settlement, I have disregarded that information in making my decision. [ 4 ] At the conclusion of argument, both parties agreed the defendant owes the plaintiff $3,295.58, for the following items: 1. Outstanding Rent: $1000.00 2. SaskEnergy Bill: $2147.43 3. SaskPower Bill: $148.35 [ 5 ] Where the parties diverge concerns the following expenses claimed by the plaintiff which total $3,583.89: 1. Security Deposit: $ 800.00 2. Invoice #1: $ 298.50 3. Invoice #2: $ 387.50 4. Invoice #4: $ 238.50 5. Invoice #5: $ 286.50 6.

Invoice #6: $1572.89 [ 6 ] During submissions, I provided verbal reasons as to why the Court was not accepting a claim for Invoice #3 from April 2017, for $247.50. [ 7 ] I will deal with each of the remaining items to determine the final amount owing to the plaintiff. I will then address the defendant’s contention that some of her expenses ought to be set- off against any monies owed the plaintiff. Security Deposit [ 8 ] The plaintiff asserts the defendant paid a security deposit of $800.00 in cash on or about June 15, 2014 and thereafter rent of $800.00 per month, commencing July 1, 2014.

The plaintiff maintained that she can apply the security deposit paid to cover the amount claimed in Invoices 1 to 6 as a result of going to Nipawin to inspect and clean her property after the defendant had vacated the premises. The defendant disputed there was any discussion of a security deposit and that the payment on June 15, 2014, was to be applied to rent. [ 9 ] As both parties agreed that $1,000.00 in rent was owed, and that the plaintiff received $800.00 cash in June 2014, I am not clear why it matters whether it is considered a security deposit or rent. The plaintiff received the $800.00.

This amount will be deducted or set-off from the amount owing by the defendant. Invoice #1 (Exhibit P-7) [ 10 ] Ms. Gallais claimed $298.50 for mileage and other expenses from St. Brieux to Nipawin return on February 1, 2017, to inspect the premises, as she had read on Facebook that Ms. McIvor had vacated the premises. Ms. McIvor admitted she did vacate the premises without providing any notice to Ms. Gallais. I find that upon learning Ms. McIvor had vacated the premises without giving proper notice, it was reasonable for Ms. Gallais to immediately travel to Nipawin in order to inspect the premises. Ms.

Gallais’ inspection included taking pictures of the inside of the premises and of a note on the door of the business. I find Ms. Gallais is entitled to mileage for traveling to the premises to inspect her property, but the rate of $0.90 per kilometer was not subject to any agreement and is not proven nor justified.

Instead, I find that a reasonable rate is $0.50 per kilometer for 265 kilometers traveled, for a total of $132.50. [ 11 ] I also find that the plaintiff is entitled to receive some remuneration for her time, being three hours for travel, and one hour for her attendance to inspect the vacated premises and speak with the defendant, at a rate of $20.00 per hour, for a total of $80.00. [ 12 ] The total amount allowed for Invoice #1 is $212.50

Invoice #2 (Exhibit P-8) [ 13 ] The plaintiff submitted this invoice for $387.50 as she had to travel to Nipawin on February 22, 2017, to change the locks on the building. She claims $100.00 for changing the locks but had no receipt and called no evidence, and I decline to order that cost. I do find that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to travel to Nipawin and have the locks changed, but the rate of $0.90 per kilometer was not subject to any agreement and is not proven nor justified.

I find a reasonable rate is $0.50 per kilometer for 265 kilometers traveled, for a total of $132.50. [ 14 ] I find that the plaintiff is also entitled to receive remuneration for three hours of travel time, and one hour to ensure the locks were changed, at a rate of $20.00 per hour, for a total of $80.00. [ 15 ] I also find that a reasonable cost for preparing and serving the documents on the defendant is one hour, at a rate of $20.00 per hour. Costs of filing, being $20.00, will also be allowed. [ 16 ] The total amount allowed for Invoice #2 is $ 252.50.

Invoice #4 (Exhibit P-9) [ 17 ] This $238.50 invoice for traveling to Nipawin on May 3, 2017, and meeting with her uncle to arrange for him to repair damage to a wall in the building, due to a leaky roof, is not proven. It is not clear from the evidence that the defendant was responsible for clearing snow from the roof to prevent leakage. I accept the defendant did on occasion clear snow from the roof, but it was not clear it was entirely her responsibility. There was evidence the roof leaked previously and had caused damage to the wall in question. I disallow this claim in its entirety.

Invoice #5 (Exhibit P-10) [ 18 ] This invoice for $286.50 was submitted for work the plaintiff completed on April 19, 2017, to clean up the outside of the building after the defendant vacated the premises. There was no agreement the defendant would be responsible for this clean up or any associated costs, nor has the plaintiff proven any other obligation on the defendant for such clean up. I find this invoice is not proven and I disallow it. Invoice #6 (Exhibit P-11) [ 19 ] The plaintiff submitted this invoice for $1,572.89 which I disallow. Ms.

Gallais attended to her building on May 17, 2017 to clean, paint and repair it after the defendant had been gone for nearly three months. There is no proof Ms. McIvor caused any damage to the building and I accept that Ms. McIvor intended to do a general cleaning but was subsequently locked out of the premises before she could do so. The Claim of the Plaintiff [ 20 ] I find that the total claim allowed for the plaintiff is $3,760.78, comprised of: 1. Outstanding Rent: $1,000.00 2. SaskEnergy Bill: $2,147.43 3. SaskPower Bill: $ 148.35 4. Invoice #1 $ 212.50 5.

Invoice #2 $ 252.50 The Set-Off Claim of the Defendant

[ 21 ] Ms. McIvor submits that any monies she owes to the plaintiff should be set-off in the amount of $1,470.00, for Invoice #478256, concerning light bulbs and electrical work. The plaintiff acknowledges that she discussed putting in new ballasts and light bulbs with the defendant. These were a benefit to the defendant as she was operating a hair salon and required more lighting. Text messages between them confirm, and both acknowledge that the plaintiff purchased the ballasts, the defendant picked them up in Prince Albert, and she and her husband installed them.

They left the light bulbs they purchased on the premises. [ 22 ] Ms. McIvor also acknowledged that there was no discussion about the plaintiff reimbursing her for this cost, but after she learned the plaintiff had commenced this action, the defendant decided to pursue this expense. [ 23 ] Further, both acknowledge that the defendant paid for an inspection of the premises prior to the continuation of the trial in January 2018, as the plaintiff was concerned about the work and whether it was up to Code.

It was acknowledged by the plaintiff that the inspection was completed and the electrical work passed inspection. [ 24 ] I find there was no agreement proven that the plaintiff would pay for the work of installing the ballasts. I decline to make any order for this invoice. [ 25 ] I do allow the $800.00 security deposit paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in June 2014 to be set-off against the amount owing to the plaintiff. Thus, the amount proven by the plaintiff, being $3,760.78 will be reduced by $800.00, the set-off amount proven by the defendant.

Conclusion [ 26 ] I find final judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $ 2,960.78, which includes the filing costs of these proceedings. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to interest. ______________________ I. J. Cardinal, J