. . SCT Claim no. 481343 Citation: Howell v. Don Bartlett's General Contracting Services Ltd., 2019 NSSM 34 BETWEEN: SIMON HOWELL and MELODI RANDELL Claimants · -and-DON BARTLETT's GENERAL CONTRACTING SERVICES Ltd. Defendant REASONS FOR DECISION BEFORE Shelly A. Martin, Adjudicator Hearing held at Truro, Nova Scotia on February 25, 2019 Decision rendered on May 6, 2019 APPEARANCES For the Claimant Self-represented. For the Defendant Self-represented.
BY THE COURT: [ 1] This case is much ado about an unfinished garage. On or about July 11, 2018 the Claimants, Simon Howell and Melodi Randell hired the Defendant, Don Bartlett to build a garage alongside their home. The terms under which they agreed to hire Mr. Bartlett were contained in a Statement of Work (SOW) presented by Mr. Bartlett to the Claimants and which was dated effective July 11, 2018. [2] Mr. Howell and Ms. Randell claim that Mr. Bartlett did not finish the garage as specified and have asked this court to award $15,000.00 representing the material and labour costs to hire another contractor to finish the garage and to correct the work done by Mr. Bartlett that they allege was done poorly. [3] For his part, Mr. Bartlett acknowledged during the hearing that he owes Mr. Howell and Ms. Randell "something, .. but he denies that the work he completed was poor and disputes the cost estimates they have provided to fix the work that was done and to complete the garage. [4] The first paragraph of the SOW was "issued pursuant to the Consultant Services Master Agreement." Neither party produced any documentation of a Consultant Services Master Agreement, only referencing the SOW and subsequent texts between the parties to demonstrate their intent with respect to the contract. [5] The work was scheduled to begin on July 13, 2018 with a completion date given as July 31, 2018. In the SOW Mr. Bartlett listed his scope of work as follows: Take down old shed complete remove debris from premises, take up all patio stones to build cement pad. Remove front gates from fence. Have excavation completed to prepare for 20 x 24 cement pad. Walls will be built from 2 x 6, @ 8' in height, walls will be double plated, pressure-treated lumber on bottom halfo f all walls. 2 x 6 at 16 inch centers. Roof trusses will be ordered 20 foot span with 12 inch overhang, walls will all be wrapped with Tiback to cover all OSB boarding. Roof will be 4/12 pitch, ice and water Nova Seal Wrap, ridge vent, laminated shingles. [6] The following paragraph he highlights the contractor's responsibilities which are: • To build 20 x 24 garage per building code requirements • To obtain building permit and organize inspection • Build a 7 x 9 garage door opening in front with a 36 x 36 window on right side front All doorways, window openings to have a header beams 2 x 10 triples. Install insulation R 20 into walls, _vapour barrier and drywall complete to a finish
. ' • Install all soffit and fascia, install vinyl siding with 6 inch corners cap all trim with aluminum capping. [7] Mr. Bartlett's asking price for the build was $24,900.00. The SOW contains a fee schedule that also lists deposits for framing, roof trusses and roofing, siding and finishing, to be paid when that work was completed. They then paid a deposit of $700 on July 12, and work began on July 13. Mr Howell and Ms. Randell then paid and additional $8165.00 on July 11, upon completion of the concrete pad. [8] However, Mr. Howell testified that "we didn't stick to the payment schedule because he was so nice and friendly and he would say things like 'you know I'm sort of having a tough time, I've had to pay insurance money, I need more money for materials and I have to pay the guys.' So long story short, we ended up paying for the entire amount before the garage was built. 11 The Howell's testified that Mr. Bartlett was paid in full by July 30, 2018. [9] Mr. Howell and Ms. Randell testified that the work on the garage was intermittent with workers coming working for a period of time and then leaving. On August 30, matters took a bizarre turn on August 30, when Mr. Bartlett came to the rear entry of the home and proceeded to scream loudly "do you want me to finish your garage or are you going to sue me?" Mr. Bartlett admits this incident was unfortunate and was prompted by the fact that "previous to me arriving at their house and they flipped out rage was that all my workers had quit on me because they had heard from Simon that they had paid me in full for the job." Mr, Bartlett claims that Mr. Howell had insinuated to the work crew at their site "I don't know how he will pay you because he has all the money for the work. 11 [10] Mr. Howell said that the labourers were upset, complaining they had not been paid yet and that Mr. Bartlett had blamed Mr. Howell and Ms. Randell for this state of affairs. [11] Police attended the residence and after calming the situation, the pair shook hands and Mr. Bartlett agreed to return to complete the garage. However Mr. Bartlett testifies within a day his work crew of four had quit again. "they came back one day and never returned. That was the end of it" he testified. [12] Eventually, the work stopped altogether on September 18, 2018. [ 13] Construction is hard work and managing multiple sites requires a sufficient number of workers, time management and a lot of money. I do not believe Mr. Bartlett intended to leave the Claimants with an unfinished garage, but that is indeed what has happened. Mr. Bartlett was very candid, admitted he made excuse after excuse as his business failed and his workers left. · [14] At the time work on the garage stopped, the building was roof tight and the rolling door was installed, but there was much work remaining to be done. Two remaining entry doors were on site but were neither framed nor installed. Additionally, the photos introduced into evidence show that the interior or't he building was unfinished, with bare walls requiring
.... vapour barrier, insulation and drywall. The fence that had been promised was not done, leaving a section of the shingled side of their home, to which the fence was previously attached, exposed to the elements. The exterior landscaping with paving stones was not done and pile of wood, gravel and other debris were left on site. [15] The Claimants also complained about the quality of the workmanship evident in the project. An incomplete siding installation has left sections of the lower wall of the garage exposed ----on all sides,-which will require.repair.-Photos submitted into evidence suggest-that.windows ____ that were supposed to be headed by 2 x 10 triples, were only headed by 2 x 10 doubles. The Claimants were also concerned that the wood framing on the garage door was completed with non pressurized wood, which, while may be in keeping with the National Building Code, was certainly not in keeping with their understanding of what would happen in the construction of their garage. [16] The Claimants have begun the process of finishing the work the Defendant began and have asked to court to award $15,000.00 for the cost of repairing some of the work done by the Claimant. The Defendant disputes this amount but, I find the estimates and receipts they provided to the court documenting the ongoing repairs and work to be reasonable under the circumstances. [17] The claim is allowed. The Claimants shall accordingly have a judgment for $15,000.00 and are also entitled to their filing fee of$199.35. [18] The total judgment is therefore for $15,199.35. Shelly A. Martin Adjudicator .
Order in the Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia BETWEEN: SIMON HOWELL AND MELODI RANDELL [...] CLAIMANTS AND DON BARTLETT's GENERAL CONTRACTING SERVICES Ltd. [...] DEFENDANT On February 25, 2019 a hearing was held in the above matter, with both parties representing themselves. Based on the representations of each party during the hearing and materials provided at that time, the following Order is made: 1. That the CLAIMANT'S action against the DEFENDANT is al!owed, as per the attached decision of this court. 2. That the DEFENDANT pay to the CLAIMANT the sums as follows: Debt: $15,000.00 Costs: $199.35 Total Judgement: $15,199.35 Dated at Truro, in the County of Colchester on the 16 th day of May, 2019. Original Court File Copy Claimant( s) Copy Defendant( s)
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.