2015 NSSM 29, 2015 NSSM 29

Claim No. SCCH SCT 438889 The Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia Cite as: Smith v. WJM Custom Home Renovations Inc., 2015 NSSM 29 Between Timothy J.K. Smith Claimant -and- WJM Custom Home Renovations Inc. Defendant Adjudicator David TR Parker QC Heard: July 6, 2015 Decision: July 13, 2015 Counsel: The Claimant was self-represented Kerri-Ann Robson represented the Defendant

1 . This matter came before the Small Claims Court in Truro, Nova Scotia on July 6, 2015. Before commencing proceedings the parties were asked if there were any preliminary motions or matters that they wish to raise. The parties were asked if there were any changes or amendments they wish to make to the pleadings. There being none, the matter proceeded accordingly following a review of the procedure with the parties and discussing some basic evidentiary matters. The Pleadings 2 . a.

The claim was for $5961.24 and the reasons for the claim were “overbilling and failure to correct defects in work done at 23 Densmore Ln., Brookfield from January 2015 to April 2015.” 3 . b. The defense was “all work was completed as per contract and invoice provided. There were no defects that required correction.” The defendant also counterclaimed for $5310.06 for amounts outstanding including finance charges as per invoices provided in the counterclaim. 4 . The amount of the claim changed as did the nature of the claim during the testimony of the claimant. 5 .

The claimant contested two particular amounts in the defendant’s invoice to the claimant. One was the additional cost for plumbing due to a permit being applied for and that amounted to $6889.50 plus HST and the second amount was $395.00 plus HST related to additional cost to remove and repair walls and floors due to plumber’s requirement to complete requested plumbing. The final amount being requested by the claimant was for damage to a countertop which in order to be replaced would costs $1107.86 plus HST. Analysis and Decision: 6 .

The original quote or estimate did involve “removed plumbing stacks and rework plumbing.” And there were other areas in the home that would require plumbing by their very nature of the work that was to be done such as in the bathroom. 7 . At one point during the renovations to the home a plumbing permit became an issue as result of the claimant’s spouse believing a permit was required. Her knowledge of this was a result of information she obtained watching television. 8 .

The claimant told the defendant a permit was required and the defendant advised the claimant that he could do the plumbing work but if he had to get a permit it would require more money as it would have to be certified by a plumber. 9 . The claimant went to the municipality and obtained a permit for the plumbing. As a result a certified plumber was required and the cost of $6889.50 was passed on to the claimant.

10 . The actual cost of the plumbing was $7740.20 plus HST however the defendant did not submit the full amount in his invoice to the claimant. 11 . There was no evidence brought before this court as to whether or not a permit for plumbing was required for Colchester Municipality. A permit was issued apparently. The claimant’s spouse said it was required because of information she gleamed from television. The defendant’s witness said that the building inspector told him he could not do anything without a permit but he also said he since found out no permit was required. 12 .

It is not for this court to draw an inference without more information that a permit is required. 13 . However whether or not it is required is incidental in arriving at a conclusion on the claimant’s claim. 14 . The claimant was advised that there would be additional costs to have a certified plumber come in and do the work. The claimant was advised of this prior to his obtaining a permit. The claimant paid the invoice without any objection and the defendant only heard this objection once a claim was filed by the claimant.

Because the claimant knew there would be an extra cost, because he never objected to paying the invoice in the beginning and because the claimant received services in the renovation of his house involving the plumbing which totaled $7740.02 plus HST these costs were reasonably expected costs in the renovations of the claimant’s home 15 . With respect to the amount of $395.00 the invoice states this was for “additional cost to remove and repair walls and floors due to plumber’s requirement to complete requested plumbing.” The claimant did not feel it was necessary to remove the walls as the defendant did. 16 .

The defendant indicated that all they were required to do was patch in around the chimney however because of venting problems in the bathroom and incorrect piping the plumbers required further renovations. The defendant’s witness said that this was explained to the claimant and that he gave us an “OK”. 17 . Again the work was done and it was required to be done and therefore the amount of $395.00 was for work that was reasonably required in which the claimant was aware. 18 . With respect to the counter top.

The pictures indicate that there was damage to the countertop and both the claimant and defendant acknowledged this fact. The defendant ordered a new countertop which is now available to be installed. The problem here is both parties feel the other is at fault. The claimant says that the countertop was damage because the kitchen tap or faucet was not connected properly and was leaking into the material under the surface of the counter causing the damage.

The defendant however says it must have been water spilled on the surface and got under the sink and caused the material to expand under the surface of the counter. The defendant stated that he brought a replacement kitchen tap which was exactly the same as a tap that was on the kitchen sink. He checked the original kitchen tap and found no leaking whatsoever but he replaced the tap anyway with the exact same tap. The claimant says since the tap was replaced there has been no further damage to the countertop. 19 .

It is extremely difficult on the evidence provided which is only through testimony of each party of what caused damage to the countertop. A leaking from the installation of the kitchen tap or spillage of water. It would seem that a properly installed counter and sink would not envisage leakage under the countertop from a spill of water on the countertop itself. This part of the claim, the claimant will succeed. 20 . The amount to install and replace the countertop is $1274.04 inclusive of HST. 21 .

With respect to the counterclaim the defendant has shown that there is still $5073.22 excluding finance charges remaining owing on the invoices for work done by the defendant for the claimant. Finance charges were not part of the original invoices nor is there any evidence that it was part of the contract or that the defendant is registered with consumer affairs. As both parties were successful to some extent they will be awarded costs.

It Is Therefore Ordered That the claimant will pay the defendant the following sums: $5073.22 $ 66.00 court costs less $1274.04 countertop less $ 199.35 $3665.83 Dated at Truro July 13 2015