Date Issued: July 31, 2024

File: SC-2023-008390

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Sharp Lines Painting, Ltd. v. Bonyad, 2024 BCCRT 735

Between:

SHARP LINES PAINTING, LTD.

Applicant

And:

DAVOOD JENABI BONYAD

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Jeffrey Drozdiak

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about an unpaid painting invoice.

2.      The applicant, Sharp Lines Painting, Ltd. (Sharp), says it provided painting services to the respondent, Davood Jenabi Bonyad, on a time plus materials basis. Sharp says Davood Bonyad did not pay the full amount owed. Sharp claims $4,378.95 for the unpaid balance, which includes labour, materials, and an allegedly stolen pressure washer.

3.      Davood Bonyad denies it owes Sharp any more money. They argue Sharp took too long to complete the work, it charged them for employees that did not report to the job site, and it only completed 60% of the job. Davood Bonyad also argues they (Davood Bonyad) supplied all materials, and Sharp picked up the pressure washer.

4.      Sharp is represented by its director. Davood Bonyad is self-represented. Davood Bonyad did not provide pronouns or a title on request, so I respectfully refer to Davood Bonyad as “they” in this decision.

5.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss Sharp’s claims and this dispute.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). CRTA section 2 says that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly.

7.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In some respects, the parties call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other’s evidence. Under the circumstances, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the evidence and submissions before me. I note the decision Downing v. Strata Plan VR2356, 2023 BCCA 100, in which the court recognized that oral hearings are not always needed where credibility is in issue. Neither party requested an oral hearing. So, bearing in mind that the CRT’s mandate is for proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

8.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in court.

9.      Where permitted by CRTA section 118, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

10.   The issue in this dispute is how much, if anything, does Davood Bonyad owe Sharp for the unpaid painting services?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Sharp, as the applicant, must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions but refer only to what I find relevant to explain my decision.

12.   On October 14, 2022, the parties signed an agreement for Sharp to paint part of the exterior of Davood Bonyad’s house. I find the agreement included the following relevant terms:

a.    Sharp would provide painting services at a daily rate of $719.10, plus tax, which included 2 painters.

b.    Sharp could add overtime hours on the last expected day of work, or when required, to avoid a daily rate charge. Sharp would charge overtime at an hourly rate of 1/8 of the total daily rate.

c.    If Sharp deemed it necessary for better service, Sharp could bring additional staff, each at 50% of the daily rate.

d.    Sharp would buy any materials and supplies not provided by Davood Bonyad, and charge for those materials with a markup.

13.   From the pictures provided by Davood Bonyad, the scope of work included painting the exterior upper level of their house, a brick wall, trim, and soffits. In an October 7, 2022 email, Sharp estimated the job would take approximately 3 days. However, I note that the agreement says Sharp does not guarantee the number of days it will take to complete the project. So, I find Sharp never guaranteed the job would take 3 days.

14.   On October 18, 2022, Sharp began the painting job. On October 21, 2022, Davood Bonyad sent Sharp several emails asking why only 10% of the job was complete. Sharp responded that it could finish the job over the weekend.

15.   On the evening of October 23, 2022, Davood Bonyad sent Sharp an email asking why Sharp had charged them $6,000. In the email, Davood Bonyad fired Sharp and demanded it remove all equipment by the next day.

16.   On October 24, 2022, Sharp provided Davood Bonyad with its invoice for $7,378.95. Davood Bonyad says that during the job Sharp charged their credit card $1,000 each day, totaling $6,000. Davood Bonyad says they contacted their credit card company and had some of the charges reversed. In total, the parties agree that Davood Bonyad has paid $3,000 towards Sharp’s invoice, leaving $4,378.95 outstanding, the amount claimed in this dispute.

How Much, If Anything, Does Davood Bonyad Owe Sharp?

17.   Sharp says Davood Bonyad still owes $4,378.95 for the painting work. Davood Bonyad argues Sharp took too long, did not finish the job, and charged them for employees that did not report to the job site. Davood Bonyad claims they do not owe Sharp any more money.

18.   To support its claim for $4,378.95, Sharp provided a copy of the agreement and its invoice. The invoice only describes Sharp’s services as residential exterior painting. Notably, Sharp does not say what that residential exterior painting included. For the following reasons, I find Sharp has not provided sufficient evidence to prove Davood Bonyad owes it anything further.

19.   First, Sharp charged $5,752.78, plus tax, for labour, which included:

a.    $5,033.70 for 2 staff on October 18, October 21, and October 22, and 4 staff on October 20 and October 23,

b.    $449.44, plus tax, for 1 staff on October 18 (for 0.25) and October 23, and

c.    $269.64, plus tax, for 6 hours of overtime on October 23.

20.   Sharp did not provide any evidence showing what painting work it actually completed between October 18, 2022 and October 23, 2022. Sharp only argues that the parties had an agreement, it has the contractual right to charge these amounts, and Davood Bonyad did not pay its invoice.

21.   As noted, Sharp has the burden of proving Davood Bonyad owes it money. This means Sharp must prove that its employees completed the painting work. Sharp failed to provide this evidence. For example, Sharp did not provide:

a.    Employee timesheets showing when each employee worked and for how long,

b.    Pictures showing the work completed, or

c.    Statements from its employees, or its foreman, saying what work it completed each day, why it was necessary to have more workers on site on some days, what each workers’ role was, and what work was done during the 6 hours of overtime.

22.   I accept Sharp completed some painting work. I say this because Davood Bonyad provided 2 pictures showing unfinished painting work on the front and side of their house. Notably, Davood Bonyad also did not counterclaim for the $3,000 they paid or argue $3,000 was unreasonable for the work done. So, I find Sharp likely completed $3,000 of labour.

23.   However, from the evidence before me, I find I cannot determine what work Sharp completed for the remaining $2,752.78, plus tax, of labour. As noted, Davood Bonyad argues Sharp only completed 60% of the job and charged for employees that did not report to the job site. Sharp did not address these allegations in its reply submissions. So, on balance, I find Sharp has not provided sufficient evidence to prove Davood Bonyad owes an additional $2,752.78, plus tax, for labour.

24.   Second, Sharp charged $688.13, plus tax, for materials. Sharp does not say what this charge included. It also did not provide any evidence, such as receipts, to show it bought materials. Davood Bonyad says they paid for all the paint. Sharp did not dispute this in its reply submissions. So, I find Sharp has not provided sufficient evidence to prove Davood Bonyad owes $688.13, plus tax, for materials.

25.   Finally, Sharp charged $549.99 for an allegedly stolen pressure washer. Sharp argues it tried to get the pressure washer back after the job, but Davood Bonyad refused access. Sharp did not provide any evidence showing it tried to get the pressure washer back. Sharp also did not provide any specifics about the pressure washer, or the basis for charging $549.99.

26.   Davood Bonyad argues a Sharp employee picked up all equipment on March 11, 2023. In support, Davood Bonyad provided a security camera picture showing someone picking up equipment in a pickup truck. Sharp did not dispute this evidence in its reply submission. So, based on the evidence before me, I find Sharp has not proven Davood Bonyad owes $549.99 for an allegedly stolen pressure washer.

27.   Overall, I find Sharp’s evidence does not show Davood Bonyad owes it any more money for the painting work. So, I dismiss Sharp’s claim for $4,378.95.

28.   Under CRTA section 49 and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Sharp was unsuccessful, I dismiss its claim for reimbursement of CRT fees. Davood Bonyad is the successful party. They paid no CRT fees and claim no dispute-related expenses, so I award no reimbursement.

 

ORDER

29.   I dismiss Sharp’s claims and this dispute.