Date Issued: August 2, 2024

File: SC-2023-007901

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Stephenson v. McCormick, 2024 BCCRT 747

Between:

JIM STEPHENSON

Applicant

And:

LEE MCCORMICK and TINA CHIAO

RespondentS

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Alison Wake

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Jim Stephenson, purchased a condominium from the respondents, Lee McCormick and Tina Chiao. The applicant says that when he took possession of the strata lot, the bathtub faucet was leaking, and the kitchen faucet was broken. The applicant claims a total of $2,128.22 to repair both faucets.

2.      The respondents say that both faucets were in working order at the time of possession. They deny owing the applicant anything for the repair costs.

3.      All parties are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      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.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, none of the parties requested an oral hearing, and I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Considering the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      In submissions, the respondents included a link to a video that they said was too large to upload as evidence. Parties are instructed not to provide website links as evidence, because website content can change, so there is generally no way for the CRT member to know whether they are viewing the same content that the parties viewed. So, I invited the respondents to resubmit the video in a different format. They did so, and I find the applicant had already provided the same video with his evidence. So, I did not find it necessary to invite the applicant to provide submissions about the respondents’ resubmitted video.

ISSUES

9.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Must the respondents pay the applicant $1,932 for repairs to the bathtub faucet?

b.    Must the respondents pay the applicant $196.22 for a replacement kitchen faucet?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In this civil proceeding, the applicant must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. While I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

11.   The background facts are undisputed. On January 25, 2023, the parties entered into a Contract of Purchase and Sale (CPS) for the applicant to purchase the condominium from the respondents. The applicant’s brother, ES, is also listed as a buyer on the CPS, but is not a party to this dispute.

12.   The CPS terms and conditions say, in part, that the seller warrants that all included items will be in proper working order as of the possession date, including plumbing components. The CPS also says that the property and all included items will be in substantially the same condition at the possession date as when viewed by the buyer on January 24, 2023.

13.   The CPS says that the possession date is April 11, 2023. However, the parties agree that the applicant took possession of the property on April 6, 2023. None of the parties explain this discrepancy, but I find nothing turns on it.

14.   The applicant says that when he took possession of the property, the kitchen faucet handle was broken and unusable, and the bathtub faucet in the bathroom was leaking. As noted, the applicant claims a total of $2,128.22 to repair both faucets.

15.   The respondents argue that they are not responsible for any deficiencies, because the applicant chose not to have the property inspected by a qualified home inspector before purchasing it. I disagree. The CPS clearly requires included items to be in working order upon possession. This requirement is not affected by the applicant choosing not to have the home inspected. So, the question is whether the applicant has shown that the respondents breached this term of the CPS.

Bathtub faucet

16.   The applicant provided multiple videos taken on the possession date which show water dripping from the bathtub handle and spout. The applicant says that this was a breach of the CPS.

17.   The respondents say that they replaced the shower’s cartridge in 2020, after their strata corporation recommended proactive replacement. I accept this, as it is supported by strata meeting minutes and a receipt the respondents provided. However, the fact that the respondents replaced the cartridge in 2020 does not mean that the faucet was not leaking when the applicant took possession of the property.

18.   In any event, the respondents do not particularly dispute that the bathtub faucet was dripping as of the possession date. Instead, they say the issue was insignificant, and that the applicant overpaid for repairs.

19.   The applicant had a plumber repair the leaking bathtub faucet. An April 21, 2023 plumbing invoice in evidence shows that the plumber cut a hole in the bathtub tile, replaced the bathtub valve, and installed a plate to cover the hole in the cut tile.

20.   The applicant paid $1,932 for these repairs, and he claims reimbursement of this amount from the respondents.

21.   First, I find that a continuously leaking faucet is not in “proper working order” as required by the CPS. I am satisfied that the bathtub faucet was leaking when the applicant took possession of the property. So, I find the respondents breached this term of the CPS.

22.   Turning to the question of damages, as noted, the respondents say that the applicant paid too much to repair the leak. They say that the issue could have been repaired by installing a new diverter plate, without cutting the tile.

23.   The applicant says that they hoped the repairs would be less expensive, but that the plumber told them that because water was dripping into the spout opening, they would need to open the wall to inspect for water damage behind the water fixture. This statement is hearsay, as there is no direct statement from the plumber to this effect in evidence. The CRT has discretion to admit evidence that would not be admissible in court proceedings, including hearsay. Here, I find the plumber’s alleged statement is consistent with their invoice in evidence, and I accept that the plumber told the applicant that the repairs were necessary. I note the respondents have not provided any documentary evidence in support of their argument that the repairs were unnecessary or overpriced.

24.   I find the applicant was entitled to rely on his plumber’s advice, and that he reasonably incurred expenses of $1,932 to replace the bathtub faucet. I order the respondents to pay the applicant this amount.

Kitchen faucet

25.   The applicant provided photographs and videos of the kitchen faucet on the possession date. They say that the water control handle was damaged, which made it incapable of regulating water flow.

26.   The respondents do not dispute that the faucet handle was broken. They say that their former tenant told them that the handle was broken and would eventually need to be replaced, but it could still be operated. The respondents say that they purchased a new faucet in September 2022, but that they were not able to install it before the applicant took possession of the property.

27.   The applicant says that the faucet was in working condition when he viewed the property in January and March 2023, while I infer the respondents say that it was broken by September 2022. This raises a question about whether the CPS terms the applicant relies on conflict with each other. Specifically, if the faucet was already broken when the applicant viewed the property, then have the respondents complied with the term that included items are in substantially the same condition as when viewed? Or, does the CPS require the faucet to be in proper working order at the possession date, regardless of its condition when viewed?

28.   Here, the condition that all included items must be in substantially the same condition as when viewed was a standard, pre-printed condition on the CPS. I find the purpose of that condition was to ensure the included items were not in a worse condition on the possession date than when the buyers previously viewed them. In contrast, the parties specifically added the sellers’ warranty that all included items would be in proper working order. The additional warranty also specifically included plumbing components. I find this specific warranty superseded the standard condition about included items being in the same condition as when viewed. In other words, I find the specific warranty meant that regardless of the faucet’s condition when the applicant viewed it, the respondents warranted that it would be in proper working order on the possession date.

29.   The applicant acknowledges that the respondents left a replacement faucet at the property. However, he says that providing an uninstalled replacement faucet does not meet the respondent’s obligation to provide included items in working order. I agree. I find the respondents breached the CPS by not ensuring that the faucet was in proper working order on the possession date.

30.   The applicant says that he was quoted $550 to replace the kitchen faucet. This is supported by a plumbing invoice in evidence. The applicant says that instead, he purchased a replacement faucet and installed it himself. He provided an April 12, 2023 receipt for the replacement faucet, which shows a cost of $196.22.

31.   While the applicant says that the replacement faucet cost only partially reflects the time and materials costs he incurred for “coordinating plumbers, procuring quotations, and obtaining tools and supplies.” However, the applicant did not claim a remedy for these additional costs. So, I find the applicant’s claim is limited to the $196.22 replacement faucet cost.

32.   I considered whether the applicant has proven that this expense was necessary, as the parties agree that the respondents had provided a replacement faucet already. The applicant says the faucet the respondents provided was not compatible with the kitchen sink, because it did not cover the sink’s 3 holes.

33.   The respondents say that the faucet included an adapter plate for a 3-hole installation. The applicant does not dispute this, but says the plate did not completely cover the 3 holes. On balance, I accept the applicant’s evidence on this point, as I find it unlikely that he would purchase a new faucet if the one the respondents provided was compatible with the sink.

34.   I note that the receipt shows that the replacement faucet was billed to another person, and shipped to the applicant. The applicant does not address this in submissions. However, the respondents do not dispute that the applicant ultimately incurred the replacement faucet cost. I order the respondents to reimburse the applicant $196.22 for the replacement faucet.

INTEREST, CRT FEES, AND EXPENSES

35.   Under the Court Order Interest Act, the applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the bathtub faucet repairs and the replacement kitchen faucet from the dates of the invoices to the date of this decision. This equals $136.45.

36.   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 the applicant was successful, I find he is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. None of the parties claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

37.   Within 30 days of this decision, I order the respondents to pay the applicant a total of $2,389.67, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,128.22 in damages,

b.    $136.45 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

38.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

39.   This is a validated decision and order. Under CRTA section 58.1, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.