Jeff Paziuk - v. -, 2024 SKPC 4

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2024 SKPC 4 Date: January 11, 2024 Information: 22-0904 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Jeff Paziuk - and - Roger Regnier Appearing: Peter Abrametz For the Plaintiff (Defendant by counterclaim) Self-Represented For the Defendant (Plaintiff by counterclaim) DECISION S.D. SCHIEFNER , J [ 1 ] This case is about a car – a good reliable car – a 2011 Jetta TDA [the “car”]. [ 2 ] Jeff Paziuk owns the car and asked Roger Regnier to repair some damage that it received in 2021.

While the repairs were of sufficient quality that it passed a Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) body integrity inspection, Mr. Paziuk was unsatisfied with the visual aesthetics of Mr. Regnier’s paint and body work. As a result, Mr. Paziuk filed a statement of claim alleging breach of contract for the provision of inferior quality work. Mr. Regnier disputes Mr. Paziuk’s claims and filed a counterclaim alleging non-payment of fees for services rendered. [ 3 ] A trial was conducted and, having considered the evidence, I am dismissing Mr. Paziuk’s claim against Mr. Regnier for breach of contract. While Mr.

Regnier’s work was inferior, the reason that it was inferior was because Mr. Paziuk refused to give him sufficient time to complete his work. For his own reasons, Mr. Paziuk made a decision – the decision to pick his car up before it was ready. The obvious consequence of that decision was to waive any warranty regarding the aesthetic quality of Mr. Regnier’s work. Mr. Paziuk now believes that his car should be repainted – painted to the quality that could have been achieved had he given Mr. Regnier the time he needed to complete his work. Mr.

Paziuk’s expectation that he is entitled to a new paint job is unreasonable. Simply put, he is the author of his own misfortune. [ 4 ] As for Mr. Regnier’s counterclaim, I have found that he is entitled to additional compensation for at least some of the additional work that he did on Mr. Paziuk’s car and for which he has not been paid. Unfortunately, not all of Mr. Regnier’s work was productive and his record keeping related to his hours of work was underwhelming. Nonetheless, I have been satisfied that 10.5 hours of Mr. Regnier’s work was productive and remains unpaid. For this work, I have found that Mr.

Regnier is entitled to compensation at the rate of $50.00 per hour. On that basis, I have granted judgment in favour of Mr. Regnier against Mr. Paziuk on his counterclaim in the total sum of $575.00 (which includes costs).

[ 5 ] The following are my reasons for coming to these decisions.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS : [ 6 ] By 2021, Mr. Paziuk had driven the car over 290,000 kilometres and it was still his daily driver. Unfortunately, on August 22, 2021, the car was damaged when it was struck (sideswiped) by another vehicle. Although mechanically unaffected, the driver’s side of the car was dented, scraped and marked. Mr. Paziuk made a claim with his insurer, SGI. However, SGI decided that the cost to repair the damage exceeded the fair market value of the car. As a result, SGI wrote the vehicle off. Mr.

Paziuk made arrangements with SGI to keep his car believing that it was still a good reliable car and accepted a cash payout. Mr. Paziuk then spoke with two autobody shops in the Prince Albert area and discovered two problems. First, the cost to fully repair his car would be expensive. Second, both of the autobody shops that he spoke with were busy - they could not begin repairing his car for months. As a result, Mr. Paziuk formulated a new plan. In October of 2021, he contacted Roger Regnier, being aware that he was a retired commercial painter. Although retired, Mr.

Regnier continued to do paint work, including some simple automotive repair. Mr. Regnier had previously repaired and painted a trailer for Mr. Paziuk. [ 7 ] Mr. Regnier testified that, after 40 years of commercial painting, he retired. During his career, Mr. Regnier did mostly commercial and industrial painting. After his retirement, he continued to do small paint work out of a garage behind his house in St. Louis, Saskatchewan. Mr.

Regnier acknowledged that, although he had experience in commercial and industrial painting, he never received specific training in autobody work or applying automotive paint. [ 8 ] Mr. Paziuk sent Mr. Regnier pictures showing the driver’s side of his car and asked him if he would be willing to repair the dents, scraps and marks. The initial contact was by text message but ultimately Mr. Paziuk and Mr. Regnier met in person. The car was delivered to Mr. Regnier’s garage on or about October 7, 2021.

The visible damage to the car included dents and scraps on the front fender, driver’s door, and the rear quarter panel (rear fender). There were also a number of black marks on the driver’s side of the car caused by the collision. Mr. Regnier agreed to repair the dents and scraps and buff out the black spots on Mr. Paziuk’s car for a fixed price. Mr. Regnier would be paid a flat fee of $1,000.00, and Mr. Paziuk would pay for all materials and supplies required to complete the repair.

The terms of this agreement were never put in writing and a number of relevant terms were never agreed upon (possibly never discussed). For example, while it was agreed that Mr. Regnier would only be painting the driver’s side of the car, they did not discuss the problem of matching new paint with old paint (the portion of the car not being repaired). In addition, while the parties agreed on the scope of the work (to repair the dents, scraps and marks on the driver’s side of the car), they never discussed or agreed upon the aesthetic quality expected of that work. [ 9 ] During their discussions, Mr.

Paziuk disclosed to Mr. Regnier that the car had been written off by SGI and it would need to pass an SGI inspection (a body integrity inspection) before it could be registered and used again. While Mr. Regnier testified that he told Mr. Paziuk it would cost significantly more if he needed the car repaired to the standard expected by SGI, it is improbable that this conversation took place. Having reviewed the evidence, I find that both parties proceeded on the assumption that the repairs to Mr.

Paziuk’s car would be of sufficient quality to pass SGI’s body integrity inspection and the fee originally estimated by Mr. Regnier ($1,000.00 plus expenses) would be his compensation for completing that work. Furthermore, Mr. Paziuk was aware that Mr. Regnier planned to repair his car using body filler (also known as “bondo”). Finally, I am satisfied that Mr. Paziuk indicated to Mr. Regnier that time was of the essence. He wanted the car fixed as soon as possible because he needed it to commute back and forth to work. Mr. Regnier estimated that it would take approximately two weeks to fix the car. [ 10 ] Mr.

Regnier began working on the car on or about October 10, 2021. Very quickly, he discovered rust in the front fender. Apparently front fenders are easy to replace and readily available. Mr. Regnier concluded that, because he had discovered rust, it would be easier to replace the front fender rather than trying to fix it. Mr. Regnier informed Mr. Paziuk that he had found rust in the front fender and recommended that it be replaced. Mr. Paziuk agreed to purchase a replacement fender. Mr. Regnier agreed to remove the old fender, and then install and paint the replacement fender.

Although it was anticipated that using a replacement fender would save labour, the parties did not agree to any change of the fee that Mr. Regnier would be paid for repairing the car. The fee remained the same $1,000.00 (plus expenses). Mr. Paziuk purchased the fender from a supplier recommended by Mr. Regnier, who removed the old fender and installed the new one. The cost of the replacement fender was $155.00. [ 11 ] While working on the car, Mr. Regnier also discovered bondo in the rear fender. He messaged Mr. Paziuk telling him that he believed the rear fender had been previously damaged and repaired.

This fact did not appear to alter the agreement between the parties. The fee remained the same ($1,000.00 plus expenses) and the method of work remained the same (the rear fender would be repaired, not replaced). [ 12 ] One of the “expenses” to be paid by Mr. Paziuk was paint. Mr. Regnier was able to determine the paint that was originally used by the manufacturer for Mr. Paziuk’s car by reading the vehicle identification number (VIN). Mr. Regnier ordered the paint and Mr. Paziuk purchased it from an automotive paint supplier.

After replacing the front fender, repairing the dents and scraps on the driver’s side doors, repairing the dents and scraps on the rear fender and buffing out the black marks, Mr. Regnier used the paint supplied by Mr. Paziuk to paint the driver’s side of the car. The paint used would have been an accurate match for the colour of the car when it was new. However, the car was not new, and the portions of the car that were not painted were (by that point in time) over 10 years old.

The parties did not seem to have turned their minds to this fact and yet it was an obvious issue in light of the scope of work (only painting one side of the car) and the recognizable inability of Mr. Regnier to colour match paint in a garage in his backyard. [ 13 ] On or about October 24, 2021, Mr. Paziuk stopped by to check on the progress on his car. The car was not done. Mr. Paziuk reaffirmed his need to have the vehicle repaired and returned as soon as possible as he needed his car to commute back and forth to work. Mr.

Regnier explained that the repairs involved more work than he originally thought, but he undertook to complete the work as soon as he could. In response to Mr. Paziuk’s concern about not having a car to drive back and forth to work, Mr. Regnier told Mr. Paziuk that he could use his car. While one of Mr. Regnier’s allegations (in his counterclaim) was that this was a rental agreement, the evidence does not support that assertion. I will discuss this issue later in these reasons. For narrative purposes, it is sufficient to note that Mr. Paziuk began driving Mr. Regnier’s car on or about October 24, 2021.

Apparently, about 48 days later (on or about December 20, 2021), Mr. Paziuk called Mr. Regnier and told him that he no longer required his car. The records indicate that Mr. Regnier picked up his car on

December 20, 2021. [ 14 ] When Mr. Paziuk’s car was sideswiped, the wheel rims on the driver’s side of the car were scuffed and covered in black marks. During their discussions about repairing the car, Mr. Regnier agreed to use a solvent to remove the black marks from the rims and then to buff out the scratches. On or about November 29, 2021, Mr. Paziuk sent a message to Mr. Regnier asking how the rims turned out. A text conversation occurred between the two regarding the rims. During this conversation, Mr.

Paziuk made the following comments that I find relevant to the “quality” or “aesthetic” expectations arising out of the agreements between the parties – Mr. Paziuk’s message said, the car is “not going into any parade”. [ 15 ] About six weeks later, Mr. Regnier called to say the car was done and Mr. Paziuk made arrangements for an SGI inspection. He picked the car up on December 28, 2021. When he did, Mr. Paziuk had an opportunity to inspect the car and was initially satisfied with the aesthetics of the repair. He testified that the car looked “done”. Mr.

Paziuk testified that, when he picked the car up, it looked like the dents had been fixed, the driver’s side of the car had been repainted, and the various black marks and other imperfections caused during the collision had been buffed out. After walking around the car and to his untrained eye, he thought it looked good. He told Mr. Regnier, “it looks great - you do good work”. [ 16 ] Mr. Regnier did not prepare any form of invoice for his work, nor did he record the hours he worked on Mr. Paziuk’s car. Although it is not clear from the evidence when he was paid, there is no dispute that Mr.

Regnier was paid $1,000.00 by Mr. Paziuk for his work. On December 28, 2021, when Mr. Paziuk picked up his car, Mr. Regnier assumed that his work was complete, and Mr. Paziuk was satisfied with his car. [ 17 ] Mr. Timothy Green is a manager at Mann-Northway Auto Source [Mann] and at the relevant time was in charge of the service and collision departments at Mann. Mr. Green was present on December 28, 2021 when Mr. Paziuk brought his car in for inspection. Mr. Green explained that his staff performed a body integrity inspection of Mr. Paziuk’s car in accordance with standards and procedures prescribed by SGI.

The car failed inspection for three reasons. The thickness of the bodily filler (bondo) used by Mr. Regnier to repair the rear fender exceeded the limits prescribed by SGI (3 mm). Second, rust was discovered on the passenger side of the car in two locations. Third, body plugs were missing from the rocker panel on the driver’s side of the car. During his testimony Mr. Green explained that, although the repair work to Mr. Paziuk’s car was only on the driver’s side, when a body integrity inspection is conducted, the entire car is examined. Mr.

Green explained that any defects identified through that process must be repaired before it can pass inspection irrespective of whether those defects had anything to do with the original damage. While the first problem (the thickness of the bondo) was an error by Mr. Regnier, the rust on the passenger side of the car had nothing to do with his work. Mr. Green clarified that, even if Mr. Regnier’s body work had met SGI’s requirements, the car would have nonetheless failed the body integrity inspection. [ 18 ] Mr. Green told Mr. Paziuk that there were two methods to repair the rear fender. First, Mr.

Paziuk could have someone cut out the damaged portion of the fender and weld in a replacement fender or panel. Mr. Green explained that, unlike a front fender, it is not possible to merely unbolt the components of a rear fender. The damaged

section must be cut out and a replacement fender/panel must be welded into place. While Mr. Green noted that this is sometimes the preferred method of repair, he also explained that doing so is a more expensive option. Mr. Green told Mr. Paziuk that the other option was to “pull” the damaged metal back into shape and then use body filler to smooth out imperfections. While doing so is an accepted industry practice, the depths of the body filler cannot exceed 6 mm for small areas or 3 mm for larger areas (greater than 2” x 3”). Mr.

Green testified that either option, if done properly, was an accepted industry practice. [ 19 ] Mr. Green also told Mr. Paziuk on December 28, 2021 that the aesthetic quality of the work completed by Mr. Regnier did not meet standards employed by the collision repair staff at Mann. Mr. Green testified that, in addition to the car failing the body integrity inspection, his staff also noticed “over spray” and that the colour of the new paint did not match the colour of the paint on the rest of the car. Mr. Paziuk testified that, after speaking with Mr.

Green about these aesthetic concerns and after seeing his car in good light, he became disappointed in the quality of the work that Mr. Regnier had performed on his car. [ 20 ] After informing Mr. Paziuk that his car did not pass the inspection, Mr. Green provided Mr. Paziuk with a vehicle work plan briefly explaining SGI’s standards and the work that must be completed to pass inspection [“vehicle work plan”]. See: Exhibit P-5. Later that day, Mr. Paziuk informed Mr. Regnier that the car failed the SGI inspection and relayed the information that Mr. Green had provided about why the car did not pass.

Although he told Mr. Regnier that his body work did not meet SGI’s requirements, it is not clear that Mr. Paziuk informed Mr. Regnier that he was disappointed with the “quality” of his paint work in any other respect. To the contrary, Mr. Paziuk sent Mr. Regnier a message saying, “I appreciate your work”, together with a thumbs-up emoji. [ 21 ] Mr. Paziuk returned the car to Mr. Regnier, who agreed to redo his repair on the rear fender. In addition, Mr. Regnier also agreed to repair the rust holes on the passenger side of the car and replace the body plugs in the rocker panel that were missing. In

summary, Mr. Regnier agreed to repair all the deficiencies identified in the vehicle work plan, not just the problem identified with his work on the rear fender. Once again, the terms of this agreement were never put in writing and were poorly verbalized. For example, they never agreed on a fee for the additional work to repair the rust holes and replace the body plugs. [ 22 ] During his testimony, Mr. Paziuk suggested that Mr. Regnier “owed” him a couple of hours because he bought a replacement front fender and that saved Mr. Regnier some hours of work. Mr. Paziuk reasoned that, because he saved Mr.

Regnier work on the front fender, he should repair the rust holes identified on the other side of the car for free (believing that the necessary work would be simple). It is not clear that Mr. Paziuk expressed these views to Mr. Regnier. However, even if he did, Mr. Regnier told him that repairing the rust holes would be a lot of work and there would be an extra fee. Mr. Paziuk agreed to pay an extra fee. However, the parties never agreed on a price. Rather, they agreed to “go for coffee” at some point and “work out a price” - that never happened.

Although the price was not determined, a second agreement was formed between the parties wherein Mr. Regnier agreed to repair each of the rust holes identified in the inspection process and replace the body plugs. As before, the parties never discussed nor agreed upon the quality of the work to be completed – other than the parties clearly proceeded on the assumption that the quality would be sufficient to pass SGI’s body integrity inspection. [ 23 ] By this point in time, Mr. Paziuk was very concerned about how long it was taking to repair his car for two reasons. First, he

needed his car for work, and he had been without his car for several months. Second, he paid a fee to have the car inspected by Mann and, unless the car was returned for re-inspection within 30 days, he would have to pay that fee again. The inspection fee was approximately $477.00. Mr. Paziuk testified that he was adamant with Mr. Regnier that he needed to complete the work on his car within 30 days – that he was to redo the rear fender and that he was to undertake such work as would be necessary to repair the other problem identified in the vehicle work plan. Mr.

Paziuk was upset because it had taken over two months for Mr. Regnier to repair his car the first time and he wanted all the repairs done and his car returned immediately. Mr. Paziuk seemed to have erroneously believed that it was Mr. Regnier’s fault that his car failed the SGI inspection. There was no evidence that Mr. Regnier agreed to Mr. Paziuk’s deadline. To the contrary, the evidence indicates he did not. [ 24 ] Mr. Regnier testified that he began working on Mr. Paziuk’s car soon after it was returned to him.

He said he ground off all the paint on the rear fender and manually “pulled” the metal back into shape. During this process, Mr. Regnier sent pictures to Mr. Paziuk of metal on the rear fender after it had been pulled back into shape but before any paint or body filler had been applied. Mr. Regnier also began repairing the rust spots on the passenger side of the car. [ 25 ] Mr. Paziuk contacted Mr. Regnier near the end of January of 2022 and insisted that Mr. Regnier complete his car within the 30-day window so that he could avoid having to pay another inspection fee to Mann. Mr.

Regnier told him the car was not done – that he needed more time to complete the work. Undeterred, Mr. Paziuk made an appointment at Mann for another inspection on January 27, 2022. Mr. Regnier testified that Mr. Paziuk told him on or about January 26, 2022 that he would be picking the car up the next day, and he wanted it ready. [ 26 ] Mr. Regnier testified that he worked late into the night to complete the work on the car. He taped and painted the car quickly. Mr. Regnier candidly admitted that the car “did not look so good” when Mr. Paziuk came to pick it up.

He estimated that he needed another three weeks to complete the work properly, but Mr. Paziuk rushed him. Mr. Regnier said that the paint was not even dry when Mr. Paziuk picked it up. [ 27 ] Mr. Paziuk picked up his car on January 28, 2022. Mr. Regnier did not prepare a bill for the extra work, and he did not keep track of the hours he spent repairing the other deficiencies identified in the vehicle work plan. There is no dispute that Mr. Paziuk never paid any additional money to Mr. Regnier for the extra work. As before, Mr.

Paziuk did have an opportunity to inspect the car when he picked it up on January 28, 2028. While he had an opportunity to do so, there was no evidence that he did inspect the work completed by Mr. Regnier. Rather, the evidence was that he got in his car and drove it directly to Mann for re-inspection. It passed inspection. [ 28 ] Mr. Green saw the vehicle when it returned on January 28, 2022. While it passed SGI’s body integrity inspection, he said there were a number of deficiencies in the quality of the paint/body work.

For example, there was over spray on the roof and on the rubber seals for the door and the windows. There was poor alignment on certain body panels and the colour of the new paint did not match the colour of the paint on the rest of the car. Finally, there were visible tape and sand lines and some unknown material (possibly a rock guard material) had been applied but poorly finished. Mr. Green said he pointed out these deficiencies to Mr. Paziuk on January 28, 2022. During his testimony, Mr. Green explained that none of these deficiencies affected the body integrity of the car – they were aesthetic concerns.

However, Mr. Green explained that the quality of the work was well below the aesthetic standards used by the body repair staff employed at Mann. [ 29 ] During his testimony, Mr. Regnier readily admitted that the quality of the paint work he did was poor. He said it was poor because Mr. Paziuk rushed him, and he did not want to wait for the work to be done properly. [ 30 ] Mr. Paziuk stopped by Mr. Regnier’s property in June or July of 2022. Although the car passed SGI’s body integrity inspection, Mr. Paziuk remained disappointed with the aesthetics of his car. He wanted to know what Mr.

Regnier was willing to do about it. Mr. Regnier said that he would be willing to repaint the whole car but that it would costs Mr. Paziuk about $2,000.00. Mr. Paziuk was unwilling to pay an additional fee and believed that Mr. Regnier should repaint the vehicle for free. Mr. Regnier reminded Mr. Paziuk that he had not yet paid him for the extra work he did to complete the vehicle work plan in January. The two men were at an impasse – Mr. Paziuk believed that his car looked ugly, and that Mr. Regnier should repaint it for free. Mr.

Regnier was not prepared to do any further work unless he got paid. [ 31 ] On August 18, 2022, Mr. Paziuk obtained an estimate from Perfection Paint & Body indicating that the cost of labour to repaint his car would be $4,413.34. This estimate was not specifically for the labour necessary to repair the aesthetic deficiencies that Mr. Regnier’s work caused. The estimate was for the labour necessary to repaint the whole car. No evidence was presented as to whether or not it was necessary to repaint the whole car to repair the aesthetic deficiencies. On August 29, 2022, Mr. Paziuk sent a demand letter to Mr.

Regnier seeking compensation in that amount. [ 32 ] On November 18, 2022, Mr. Paziuk filed a statement of claim alleging that the work Mr. Regnier performed on his car was of inferior quality and that a complete paint job would be required to repair the defective work. Mr. Paziuk claimed $4,413.34 in damages. [ 33 ] On May 15, 2023, Mr. Regnier filed a counterclaim alleging two different claims against Mr. Paziuk. Both claims were poorly articulated. The essence of Mr. Regnier’s first claim is that he loaned a car to Mr. Paziuk and it was agreed (or understood) that Mr.

Paziuk would pay him at the rate of $20.00 per day for the use of his car. For this claim, Mr. Regnier seeks damages in the amount of $960.00 (48 x $20.00) for unpaid car rental fees. The essence of Mr. Regnier second claim is that he worked 81.5 hours in January of 2022 doing repairs to Mr. Paziuk’s car and preparing it for reinspection. He alleges that it was agreed (or understood) that he would be paid at the rate of $50.00 per hour for his work. For this claim, Mr. Regnier seeks damages in the amount of $4,075.00 for unpaid fees. [ 34 ] During a mediation process leading up to trial, Mr.

Regnier voluntarily agreed to repaint the roof, remove some of the overspray, and polish the old paint on Mr. Paziuk’s car. By doing so, Mr. Regnier repaired some (but not all) of the aesthetic issues identified by Mr. Green. For example, he removed the overspray on the roof and rubber seals and reduced (but did not eliminate) the colour differences between the old and new paint. However, a number of other aesthetic issues remained. For, example, the gap between the driver’s side front fender and the driver’s door was noticeable too small.

In addition, the paint on the driver’s side rear fender was noticeably uneven, and unfinished material had been placed on the bottom portions of both of the front fenders.

Review of the Evidence: [35] A trial was conducted on November 6, 2023. Mr. Paziuk testified in support of his claims and in response to thecounterclaims made by Mr. Regnier. He also called Mr. Timothy Green, who was qualified as an expert in automotive repair andautobody work. Finally, Mr. Regnier testified in support of his counterclaims and in response to the claims made by Mr. Paziuk. Thetrial took all day. [36] Neither Mr. Paziuk nor Mr. Regnier were particularly good witnesses. Both men were frustrated with the other and theirtestimony tended to wander into irrelevancies. My earlier

summary of the facts is based on my review of all of the evidence I heard,together with the materials and documents filed with the Court. If my

summary of the facts differs from the testimony of any particularwitness on a particular point, it is because I found that witness’s testimony to be unreliable on that particular point. [37] At the time of trial, Mr. Paziuk still owned the car and regularly drove it to work. He estimated that he had driven the car over300,000 kilometres by that point in time. While it continued to be a good reliable car, Mr. Paziuk remained dissatisfied with the qualityof Mr. Regnier’s repair work. Simply put, he thought his car looked ugly. On the other hand, while Mr.

Regnier received $1000.00 forthe services he rendered, he believed he was entitled to additional compensation for the additional work that he did for Mr. Paziuk andblamed the poor quality of his repair work on Mr. Paziuk’s refusal to give him more time to complete his work. THE LAW AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS: [38] In these proceedings, both of the parties bring a cause of action against the other for breach of contract – one by claim, and theother by counterclaim. Mr. Paziuk is alleging breach of contract for the provision of inferior quality of paint work. Mr.

Regnier isalleging non-payment of agreed compensation. Neither has provided this Court with a copy of a written agreement setting forth the termswhich they alleged have been breached. [39] Contracts for the provision of services can be in writing or they can be oral.

In some cases, they exist as a combination of both.In an ideal world, the parties to a contract would prepare a comprehensive written agreement – one that identifies with clarity the price,the specific manner in which the work is to be done, the precise goods to be used to complete that work, the timeline for completion ofthe work, and all corresponding rights, obligations, and remedies in the event of non-compliance with that agreement. In that ideal world,when a dispute arises between the parties, one would merely read the agreement to determine the rights, obligations and remedies of theparties.

However, the reality is that most people do not have the ability or desire to organize their affairs in that fashion and seldom is itnecessary to do so - unless a dispute arises, as it did in the present case. [40] Where parties to an executed agreement for the provision of goods and services have failed to identify certain terms andconditions which were intended to bind the parties, a court has the obligation to import certain implied terms and conditions in order togive efficacy to the agreement. In doing so, however, the court must be guided on the intentions of the actual parties.

A court, whendealing with implied terms must be careful not to slide into determining the intentions of reasonable parties. [See, generally: CanadianPacific Hotels Ltd. v Bank of Montreal, (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 711].

The proper question the court must ask is whether ornot the parties would, having turned their minds to the issue when entering into the agreement, have concluded that the implied termunder consideration would obviously be one which they would have agreed to. [41] For the purposes of this action the law is clear that in the absence of an agreement stipulating the manner in which the work isto be carried out, there is an implied condition that the work shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, and that theworkmen employed on the work shall be possessed of the ordinary skill possessed by those exercising that particular trade.

In addition,determining whether work or material is deficient or not, in each case, a question of fact depending on the construction of the particularspecifications where there are any, and on expert evidence as to what is reasonable where there are none. [See, generally: Mack v Stuike (1963), (SK KB), 43 DLR (2nd) 763 (Sask QB). [42] In addition, when parties to an executed contract have failed to identify a price to be paid for goods and services rendered –which were clearly intended to be paid for – then they may be presumed to have intended to pay a reasonable price and, on that basis, acontractual term to pay a reasonable price may be implied. [See, generally, CH2M Hill Energy Canada, Ltd. v Consumers’ Co-operativeRefineries Ltd., 2010 SKCA 75 at para 24, 362 Sask R 104. [43] Having reviewed the evidence, I find that: 1.

Mr. Paziuk and Mr. Regnier entered into a lump sum fee for service agreement on or about October 7, 2021 (Agreement #1). Inthe end, the terms of this agreement were as follow: a. Mr. Regnier agreed to repair the dents, scraps and marks on the driver’s side of Mr. Paziuk’s car (2011 Jetta) for a lump sum of$1,000.00. b. Mr. Paziuk agreed to pay for the cost of a new fender ($155.50), the paint, and any other incidental expenses required by Mr.Regnier to complete his work. 2. Mr. Paziuk and Mr. Regnier entered into a fee for service agreement on or about December 28, 2021 (Agreement #2).

The termsof this agreement were as follows: a. Mr. Regnier agreed to repair two rust holes on the passenger side of Mr. Paziuk’s car and to install new body plugs in the rockerpanels. b. Mr. Paziuk agreed to pay a reasonable fee – to be determined later. 3. Mr. Paziuk and Mr. Regnier did not enter into a car rental agreement on October 20, 2021. Mr. Regnier’s assertion that Mr. Paziukunderstood that he would be required to pay a rental fee for the use of Mr. Regnier’s car while his car was being repair is without merit.

During his own testimony, Mr. Regnier admitted that “maybe he did not mention” to Mr. Paziuk that he expected compensation for the use of his car. He also acknowledged that he never prepared a bill nor asked for payment of a rental fee when Mr. Paziuk told him he was done with his car. The preponderance of the evidence would indicate that Mr. Regnier allowed Mr. Paziuk to use his car as a courtesy because the repairs to the Jetta were taking longer than he originally estimated. It would be contrary to logic and the law to retroactively treat this arrangement as a car rental agreement. Review of Mr.

Paziuk’s claims against Mr. Regnier : [ 44 ] In his statement of claim, Mr. Paziuk alleges that Mr. Regnier breached the terms of their agreements in two respects; first, that the work took too long to complete; and second, that the work was below the aesthetic qualities understood or agreed to by the parties. Did Mr. Regnier’s work take too long to complete the work ? NO. [ 45 ] During the trial, Mr. Paziuk repeatedly stated that Mr. Regnier estimated that it should only take two weeks to complete the repairs to his car. Mr. Paziuk argued that this “estimate” became a term of the Agreement #1. In essence, Mr.

Paziuk believes that Mr. Regnier had “guaranteed” that all work to repair the dents, scrapes and mark on his car would be completed by a fixed completion date (two weeks). With due respect, Mr. Paziuk’s belief regarding the time it should have taken to complete the repairs on his car was self- serving and he was willfully blind to the events as they unfolded. First, his expectation did not take into account the fact that Mr. Regnier found latent defects (hidden damage) in both the front fender (rust) and rear fender (prior damage).

These defects were not part of their original agreement, yet they needed to be addressed to complete the repair work. Mr. Paziuk would have me believe that, after a superficial examination of the damage to his car, Mr. Regnier provided him with a guaranteed completion date wherein Mr. Regnier agreed to assume the risk of any delays arising out of the discovery of latent defects. With respect, no reasonable person would infer that Mr. Regnier intended to, or did in fact, provide that form of a guarantee.

A reasonable person observing the dealings between these two men would have assumed that the parties intended that the work would be completed “as soon as reasonably possible”. Was the work on Mr. Paziuk’s car completed as soon as reasonably possible? YES [ 46 ] In light of the latent defects discovered in Mr. Paziuk’s car, the time it took Mr. Regnier to complete the repairs anticipated by Agreement #1 was not unreasonable. Certainly, there was no evidence to suggest otherwise (other than Mr. Paziuk’s persistent disappointment). While Mr. Green had a number of criticisms relating to the quality of Mr.

Regnier’s work, he did not criticize how long it took him to complete the repair. To the contrary, Mr. Green’s testimony tended to illustrate just how difficult and exacting this type of work is. [ 47 ] While the failure during the first body integrity inspection resulted in a delay, Mr. Paziuk’s car failed for a number of reasons, only one of which was related to the work completed by Mr. Regnier. Second, even if Mr. Regnier had agreed to “guarantee” a completion date for the work in Agreement #1 (which he did not), the time to complete that work was extended by the parties when they entered into Agreement #2.

Mr. Regnier advised Mr. Paziuk that repairing the rust holes would involve a lot of work and would take time to complete. As I will discuss later in these reasons, it was not unreasonable that the work anticipated by Agreement #2 would have taken more than 30 days to complete. Did Mr. Regnier supply inferior quality work ? YES [ 48 ] Mr. Regnier does not dispute that he did inferior quality work. Although disappointed that Mr. Paziuk’s car failed SGI’s body integrity inspection on December 28, 2021, he candidly admitted that he was not aware of SGI’s limits regarding the thickness of body filler. In addition, Mr.

Regnier admitted that the quality of work was inferior when Mr. Paziuk picked his car up on January 28, 2022. He admitted that he rushed the job and that the car did not look very good when Mr. Paziuk came to pick it up. As he put it, “the paint was still wet”. [ 49 ] While there is no dispute that the quality of Mr. Regnier’s work was inferior, I wish to make certain comments on the issue of quality.

In the absence of a specific term dealing with quality in a fee for service agreement, the common law presumes that the parties intended that the work would be done in a “good and workmanlike fashion” consistent with the level of skill of persons ordinarily employed in that particular field. However, in the present case there is evidence that suggests that the parties understood that a lower level of quality of work would ensue. For example, there is no dispute that the parties understood and agreed that the repair work must be of sufficient quality to pass SGI’s body integrity inspection.

However, while SGI’s inspection process sets a high bar for vehicle safety, it sets a rather low bar for aesthetic considerations. When I consider the whole of the evidence, I find it improbable that the parties intended that Mr. Regnier’s repairs were anticipated to achieve the same level of aesthetic quality that would have been performed by the autobody repair staff working at a modern collision center like Mann. I come to this conclusion because Mr. Paziuk had a friend working at Mann and he chose not to have his car repaired at that facility. Rather, he chose someone working out of a garage behind his house.

His reason for making this choice seems apparent in the message he sent Mr. Regnier during their discussion about the quality of the wheels, when Mr. Paziuk replied that the car was “not going in any parade”. [ 50 ] By way of further example, it would have been obvious to anyone that Mr. Regnier did not have the capacity in his small garage to mix and match the colour of paint the same way the collision staff could at a modern automotive facility (such as Mann). Mr. Regnier’s repair plan was to order paint based on the colour of the car when it was new. Mr. Paziuk was aware of this plan.

He picked up the paint from the supplier. The obvious corollary of this work plan (which involved only painting part of the car) was the risk that the new paint might not match the old paint (which had faded over the past 10 years). I find it improbable that the quality expectations agreed to by the parties in either of their agreements required Mr. Regnier to precisely match the old and new paint. [ 51 ] Finally, I note that after the first SGI inspection, Mr. Paziuk became aware that the quality of Mr. Regnier’s work was below industry standards.

However, when he returned his car to redo the rear fender (because it failed inspection), Mr. Paziuk did not ask Mr. Regnier to redo the front fender or the driver’s door to correct the aesthetic deficiencies identified by Mr. Green. If Mr. Paziuk was

disappointed in the aesthetic quality of Mr. Regnier’s work, why did he not ask Mr. Regnier to redo those parts of the car at that time? [ 52 ] Simply put, while both Agreement #1 and Agreement #2 required Mr. Regnier to repair Mr. Paziuk’s car in a good and workmanlike fashion, these agreements did not require Mr. Regnier to precisely match the new paint to the old nor was he expected to achieve the same level of aesthetic quality of a professional autobody shop.

On the other hand, the overspray, the visible sanding and tape lines and the unfinished material all represented inferior quality work on any reasonable standard, as did improper fitment of body panels. [ 53 ] As I have noted, Mr. Regnier does not dispute, and candidly admitted, that the quality of his work was inferior. It should also be noted that some (but not all) of the aesthetic deficiencies identified by Mr. Green were remedied by Mr. Regnier in March of 2023. Is Mr. Paziuk entitled to damages as a result of the inferior work performed by Mr. Regnier ?

NO [ 54 ] Normally, damages for inferior work is based on the reasonable cost to redo that work in order to place the claimant into the same position they would have been had the contract been properly performed. However, in the present case, I find that Mr. Paziuk is not entitled to any damages because he waived all quality expectations (save one) related to the repair of his car when he booked an appointment and told Mr. Regnier he was picking up his car before the work could reasonably be completed. [ 55 ] Mr. Regnier testified and I accept that he was not able to complete the necessary repairs to Mr.

Paziuk’s car within 30 days. While Mr. Paziuk expressed his belief that the work could have (and should have) been completed within 30 days, he also admitted that “he is not a body guy” – meaning he does not have any experience estimating the time reasonably necessary to complete autobody repair. Mr. Green was an expert called by Mr. Paziuk and Mr. Green did not testify that it was unreasonable for Mr. Regnier to need more than 30 days to complete the work identified in the vehicle work plan. [ 56 ] Mr. Regnier testified, and I accept that he told Mr.

Paziuk it would be a lot of work to repair the rust holes on the passenger side of the car. Mr. Regnier also testified and I accept that he told Mr. Paziuk, when he called near the end of the 30-day period, that he needed more time to complete his repair work. Finally, Mr. Regnier testified and I accept that, even after being informed that the work could not be completed within the suggested timeframe, Mr. Paziuk insisted that Mr. Regnier have his car ready for pick up on January 28, 2022 so that it could be taken to Mann for re-inspection. Mr. Paziuk did not dispute or contradict Mr.

Regnier’s testimony on any of these points. [ 57 ] Clearly, Mr. Paziuk did not want (or did not think he should have) to pay another SGI inspection fee ($477.00). To avoid paying that fee again, Mr. Paziuk made a decision – the decision to pick his car up before it was ready. The obvious consequence of that decision was to waive all quality expectations, other than the expectation that the quality of the vehicle would be sufficient to pass a body integrity inspection – which it did. After passing the SGI inspection, Mr.

Paziuk now believes that his car ought to be repainted – painted to the quality that could have been achieved had he given Mr. Regnier the time he needed to complete his work. [ 58 ] With due respect, Mr. Paziuk’s expectation that his car ought to have been repainted at Mr. Regnier’s expense is unreasonable. It is not based on business efficacy. Mr. Paziuk made a decision that saved himself $477.00 but the result of that decision was a rushed and inferior paint job. As the British idiom goes, his decision was “Penny-wise but pound-foolish”. [ 59 ] It is possible that Mr.

Regnier did not have the requisite skill or knowledge to complete the repairs to Mr. Paziuk’s car to industry standards (“good and workmanlike fashion”) or even to some reduced standard anticipated by his agreements with Mr. Paziuk. Certainly, his first attempt fell below industry standards. However, we will never know. Mr. Paziuk refused to give him sufficient time to complete the required work. The consequences of that decision should fall on Mr. Paziuk, not Mr. Regnier. [ 60 ] For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Paziuk’s claim for damages against Mr. Regnier is dismissed. Mr. Regnier’s claims against Mr.

Paziuk : [ 61 ] Mr. Regnier’s claims are two-fold – first, breach of a car rental agreement; and second, non-payment of fees for services rendered. As I have already noted, I do not find that a rental agreement was formed between the parties. I find that Mr. Regnier allowed Mr. Paziuk to use his car as a courtesy while the Jetta was being repaired. There is no basis in law to retroactively recharacterize the arrangements between the parties as a car rental agreement. As a result, this aspect of Mr. Regnier’s counterclaim is dismissed. Was Mr. Regnier paid by Mr. Paziuk for all the services he rendered?

NO [ 62 ] While Mr. Regnier was paid the lump sum agreed upon pursuant to Agreement #1, he did not receive any payment for the services he rendered pursuant to Agreement #2. On the other hand, there are some problems with this aspect of Mr. Regnier’s counterclaim. First, there is no dispute that the quality of his work was inferior to industry standards. Second, although Agreement #2 was a fee for service agreement, the parties did not agree on either a lump sum or an hourly rate. In addition, while Mr. Regnier tracked and recorded the total number of hours he worked on Mr.

Paziuk’s car in January of 2022 (81.5 hours), he did not track and record which part of the car he was working on during these hours. Finally, Mr. Regnier never prepared nor presented a bill for service to Mr. Paziuk regarding the work he did repairing the rust holes and installing new body plugs in the rocker panels. [ 63 ] Although the quality of Mr. Regnier’s work was inferior, Mr. Paziuk never gave him time to finish. Also, Mr. Regnier’s work was not inferior in all respects. His work was of sufficient quality that the car passed SGI’s body integrity inspection, which was clearly Mr.

Paziuk’s primary goal on January 28, 2022. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr. Regnier performed productive work for Mr. Paziuk for which he is entitled compensation. [ 64 ] As I have noted, where parties enter into a contract for the provision of services and there is an intention to pay for those services, but the parties do not turn their minds to this issue of remuneration, and where those services are subsequently performed (or in this case, partially performed), the Court may infer that the parties intended the payment of a “reasonable price” for those services. Mr.

Regnier testified that his hour rate for his services was $50.00 per hour. Having considered the evidence, I find this rate to be reasonable.

[ 65 ] There is no dispute that Mr. Regnier received payment for Agreement #1. However, during January of 2022, Mr. Regnier worked on both repairing and repainting the driver’s side rear fender (which was his residual obligation under Agreement #1) and repairing the rust holes identified during the vehicle integrity inspection (which he agreed to perform under Agreement #2). I must therefore determine how many hours Mr. Regnier worked on Agreement #2. Further compounding this situation is that only part of this work was “productive” in the sense that it was of sufficient quality to allowing Mr.

Paziuk’s car to pass SGI’s body integrity inspection. Mr. Paziuk received a benefit from this aspect of the work performed by Mr. Regnier and it would result in an unjust enrichment if Mr. Regnier did not received compensation for that portion of his work. [ 66 ] Having considered the evidence in these proceedings, I find that of the 81.5 hours that Mr. Regnier worked on Mr. Paziuk’s car in January of 2022, 10.5 hours were attributable to Agreement #2 and resulted in a tangible benefit for Mr. Paziuk. In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that Mr.

Regnier spent approximately five hours of productive work repairing each of the two rust holes identified in the vehicle work plan. It is also reasonable to conclude that he spent half an hour to install the required body plugs in the rocker panels. [Calculation: 5 + 5 +.5 = 10.5] [ 67 ] For the foregoing reasons, I find that Mr. Paziuk is in breach of his obligation to pay reasonable remuneration to Mr. Regnier for the repair services he provided pursuant to Agreement #2. Mr. Regnier is entitled to damages in the amount of $525.00 [Calculation: 10.5 x $50.00]. Because Mr.

Regnier neither prepared nor presented a bill to Mr. Paziuk for these services, I decline to award pre- judgment interest. Finally, Mr. Regnier shall be entitled to costs in the amount of $50.00 by virtue of his success in his counterclaim. [ 68 ] In total, Mr. Regnier is granted judgment in the sum of $575.00, which I direct to be paid immediately. Dated this 11th day of January, 2024, at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. __________________________ S.D. Schiefner, J