IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Cite as: Steve’s Fleet Services Ltd. v. Wee Dump Inc., 2014 NSSM 68
Claim No: SCCH 419801
BETWEEN:
|
Name |
Steve’s Fleet Services Ltd. |
Claimant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
Wee Dump Inc. |
Defendant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Notice: Addresses and phone numbers have been removed from this electronic version of the judgment.
Stephen V. Munroe and Vince Neary appeared for the Claimant.
Terry Reid appeared for the Defendant.
DECISION
This matter concerns a contract for repairs to the Defendant’s 2010 Hino 155 tandem axle dump trailer. Essentially, the matter concerns the extent of the Defendant’s directions to make certain repairs to its vehicles and what was done as a result. The Claimant sought payment of its account in full while the Defendant does not believe it should pay anything. At the end of the hearing, I rendered an oral decision finding in favour of the Claimant but to a reduced amount. Since that time, I have had an opportunity to consider certain aspects of the calculation of the judgment and, thus I felt written reasons were in order.
The matter concerned the payment of four separate invoices. Following the hearing, it was clear there was no dispute for two of them (Invoice #1744 at $103.56 and #1809 for $174.20). Both parties acknowledged the work was done and the amount shown was accurate. A third invoice, #1927, was conceded by the Claimant to be excessive and was reduced to $234.10 plus taxes or $269.22. The Claimant also reduced the largest one, #1847 from $2667.79 to $2437.72. These two invoices are at issue.
The Defendant filed an itemized defence and counterclaim totalling $4017.99. The owner of the Claimant, Stephen Munroe, was named in the counterclaim in his personal capacity. Mr. Munroe was not a Claimant and ought not to have been named in a counterclaim. This was a contract between the two companies. The counterclaim against him is dismissed. I note in passing, that none of the evidence presented in court is consistent with any contract with Mr. Munroe in his personal capacity. If the Defendant intends to file a claim against Mr. Munroe, it must start a fresh claim.
Stephen Munroe is the President of the Claimant. He testified to the work done on the truck and a trailer owned by the Defendant. He tendered into evidence various invoices from previous jobs his company performed for the Defendant. I disallowed this evidence as it was not relevant to the invoices which are the subject of this claim. As noted, Invoices 1744 for $103.56 and 1809 for $174.20 are not in dispute. I find the Claimant entitled to payment for these amounts.
Invoice # 1847
Mr. Munroe testified that the Defendant’s
driver, Vincent O’Toole, delivered the Hino 155 to Steve’s Fleet’s place of
business in Burnside. At the time, the brakes were smoking and seemingly on
fire. He described the work to be done as repairing and replacing rear brakes,
installing new rotors and callipers. The total amount at the time was $2667.79.
Invoice #1927
This involved a Motor Vehicle Inspection,
repair and replacement of lights which were discovered during the MVI and
examination of the brakes. The total of this invoice was $472.82. He spoke with
Mr. O’Toole and Terry Reid who claimed the work was unauthorized and
repetitious.
The Claimant received a payment of $2945.55 by cheque dated June 26, 2013, which the Defendant subsequently stopped.
On cross-examination, he testified that the U-Bolt and other parts were replaced without consulting with Mr. Reid.
Terry Reid is the President of Wee Dump Inc., which is in the “junk removal business”. The company owns two trucks, a Hino 155 and a 2000 Ford F250 truck. It also owns seven trailers.
He testified that his driver, Vince O’Toole took the truck to the Defendant’s location to fix his brakes as the brake pad fell off the truck the previous Saturday. He could not imagine the brakes smoking. He was advised that when he arrived the brakes were laying out on the floor when all that was required was a motor vehicle inspection and the repair and replacement of some lights that were burnt out.
Vincent O’Toole is a driver employed by the Defendant. He testified to leaving the HINO with Steve’s Fleet. He returned later to find the brakes off and the wheels and brakes on the floor. He returned to advise Mr. Reid.
In considering the evidence, I find the work on the first three invoices was performed to the Defendant’s satisfaction, at least initially. However, this changed once he received a bill for unauthorized and unnecessary brake work. In protest, Mr. Reid placed a stop payment on the cheque for the previous three invoices, which he was not entitled to do.
In reviewing the defence, the Defendant did not call any evidence in support. Consequently, I disallow the defence in its entirety, but for the slight modifications to the initial claim.
With respect to Invoice #1847, the Claimant has acknowledged that certain items ought not to have been charged. Specifically, Mr. Munroe and Mr. Neary conceded that the replaced u-bolts were unauthorized and installed improperly. For a value, I refer to the defence and counterclaim and allow $169.02 + HST or $194.37. Furthermore, I find the brakes that were installed were not satisfactory. The bill provides no prices, thus I again adopt the estimate from the Counterclaim, namely $150.00 + HST or $172.50 for the UAP brand brakes.
I find the work was performed on the brakes but nowhere near to the extent indicated. This was meant to be an inspection only with the replacement of lights. I accept the recommendation of the Claimant and reduce the bill to $214.10 + HST or $246.22, two hours work labour plus parts.
In summary, I find the Claimant has proven the following:
Invoice #1744 $ 103.56
Invoice #1809 $ 174.20
Invoice #1847 ($2667.79 - $194.37-$172.50)$2300.80
Invoice #1927 $ 246.22
Total $2824.78
The Claimant seeks interest on the unpaid invoices at 2% per month. However, there was no disclosure of that rate on the invoices as required to establish a contractual rate. In any event, I find the conduct of both parties led to the dispute when the services were rendered.
I find the Defendant offered no evidence in support of any of the items listed in the counterclaim. Several of those items are more appropriately described as costs. The counterclaim is dismissed.
I find the conduct of the Claimant and discrepancies in the amount of the bill contributed to the duration of this dispute. There was success on both sides. This is an appropriate case for each party to bear their own costs. I also decline to award prejudgment interest.
The Claimant shall have judgment in the amount of $2824.78.
Order accordingly.
Dated at Halifax, NS,
on July 21, 2014.
______________________________
Gregg W. Knudsen, Adjudicator
Original: Court File
Copy: Claimant(s)
Copy: Defendant(s)