Site 2020 Incorporated o/a Titan Traffic Claimant - v. -, 2022 NSSM 24

SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Site 2020 Incorporated v. Ross , 2022 NSSM 24 Date: 202203 31 Docket: SCCH 509442 Registry: Halifax Between: Site 2020 Incorporated o/a Titan Traffic Claimant - and - Shane Ross and Culloden Properties Corporation Defendant s Adjudicator : Eric K. Slone Heard : February 2, 2022 in Halifax, Nova Scotia via zoom Appearances : For the Claimant, Krista Dawn, General Manager For the Defendant, Shane Ross BY THE COURT : [ 1 ] The Claimant supplies traffic control services for projects where traffic needs to be diverted or controlled because of road work. Ms. Krista Dawn is the company’s General Manager.

[ 2 ] The Defendant Shane Ross manages projects for the Defendant, Culloden Properties Corporation (“Culloden”), which is a company owned by his parents. [ 3 ] In early 2021 Culloden was constructing a building on Clarence Street in Dartmouth. They were at the stage where water and sewer mains needed to be connected, which would require a partial street closure for a few days in early May. [ 4 ] On May 7, 2021, Ms.

Dawn received a phone call from someone who identified herself as Vanessa, saying that she represented Culloden, and asking if she could supply a crew of three to perform traffic control starting on May 10. Ms. Dawn said that they could. She was given Shane Ross’s name and cell phone number as the person to coordinate with. [ 5 ] The Claimant’s services were required for four days, and a bill was prepared totalling $4,830.00. There is no dispute about the quality of the services nor about the amount charged. [ 6 ] During the project Ms.

Dawn engaged in regular text communication with Shane Ross, covering subjects both substantial and trivial. On May 19, 2021, as the bill was being prepared, Ms. Dawn texted Mr. Ross asking where she should send the invoice. Mr. Ross replied: Just send it to me at (email address) and I’ll make sure it gets k to the system.” (sic) [ 7 ] This is what was done. The bill has never been paid. Nor was any reasonable explanation given until the matter ended up in this court. [ 8 ] Mr. Ross testified that neither he personally, nor Culloden, retained the Claimant’s services.

He stated that he retained a subcontractor to perform the water and sewer main connections and had a written contract that included supplying traffic control services. He produced in evidence a contract dated April 10, 2021, between Culloden and a company, DEH Excavation (“DEH”), that contains those terms. [ 9 ] Mr. Ross testified that when he received the invoice from the Claimant, he forwarded it on to DEH. He does not know why it has not been paid but insists that it is not his responsibility. He says that he does not know who “Vanessa” is. [ 10 ] I accept as a fact that Ms.

Dawn was never made aware of the existence of DEH, nor that it was DEH that was supposedly contracting for the Claimant’s services. Mr. Ross admits that he never mentioned DEH in any of his communication with Ms. Dawn. Who is responsible to pay the Claimant? [ 11 ] Had all of the facts been known to the Claimant at the time it agreed to provide its services, the Defendant might have a compelling basis to deny responsibility. But not all of the facts were known. [ 12 ] I accept that Culloden contracted with DEH for services that included traffic control, but the Claimant did not know anything about that contract.

[ 13 ] It is a well-known principle of agency law that the “agent” in a transaction may become fixed with personal liability, either solely or jointly with the “principal.” In this situation Culloden occupied the role of agent, in the sense that it became the only source of contact for the Claimant. DEH was essentially an undisclosed, or unknown principal. The Claimant - acting in good faith - honestly and reasonably believed that it was contracting with Culloden.

For its part, Culloden did little or nothing to disabuse the Claimant of that understanding. [ 14 ] I find that Culloden is responsible for the cost of the Claimant’s services. [ 15 ] In a sense there is no perfect result, because either the Claimant goes unpaid, or the Defendant is put at risk of paying twice for the same thing.

But in my view, holding the Defendant responsible is the just result not only from a legal, but also from a practical point of view, as it is Culloden (and not the Claimant) that would have contractual recourse against DEH and should be able to recoup what it has to pay to the Claimant. [ 16 ] The Claimant shall have judgment against the Defendant Culloden for $4,830.00 plus costs of $199.70, for a total of $5,029.70. [ 17 ] The personal claim against Mr. Ross will be dismissed, as there was never any reason for the Claimant to believe that it was personally contracting with him. Eric K. Slone, adjudicator