B.C. woman wins court case against contractor


A British Columbia woman was awarded nearly $750,000 in damages in a dispute with a contractor who plagued her for a year and a half and failed to complete a renovation, according to a recent court decision.

The ruling in the dispute, which dates back to 2018, was handed down in Vernon Supreme Court last week after a summary trial.

Beverly Wanklyn was suing her former contractor Rene Bertrand and his company for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, also alleging that money she paid was diverted to other projects. The company, at the time, operated as Elite Life & Home Painting & Renovations.

“After paying them a total of $771,207.96 and waiting more than a year and a half for the work to be completed, he ultimately lost faith in them and hired a different contractor to complete the work,” the decision says.

In 2017, Wanklyn lived alone in a lakefront home in Kelowna, according to the decision. In January of that year, he hired Bernard to build a guest suite in the house and paid him approximately $76,000. That project went as planned.

“After Mr. Bertrand successfully completed the guest suite, they discussed a more comprehensive renovation of the rest of the house,” the decision said, noting that Wanklyn had a month-long vacation planned in the spring.

“Mr. Bertrand told her he could do the job and pretty much finish it while she was away.”


The stalled renewal

The renovation included demolition, reconfiguration of the layout of the house, replacement of a deck, installation of central air conditioning and a central vacuum system, replacement of the roof, installation of new plumbing, replacement of the hot water tank and wiring of the house . Also among the jobs to be done were new flooring, lighting and a new paint job.

Bertrand quoted his client $379,575 for the job, and the court heard Wanklyn paid him $327,245 before she left for her trip.

“She expected to arrive at a newly renovated house. Instead, she was shocked to discover that the house had been destroyed and progress had stopped,” the court heard.

“Ms Wanklyn asked for her money back. Mr Bertrand refused to provide a refund, explaining that his money had already been spent on purchasing the materials needed for the renovation. This appears not to have been true.”

Bertrand explained the condition of the house by saying that he had discovered rot in the supporting wooden beams of the house and that he had “withheld that information … because I did not want to ruin his vacation,” the decision said.

The estimate Betrand provided to repair the beams was $50,000, an amount Wanklyn paid in full.

But the work did not progress.

In July 2017, the court heard, Wanklyn was told the damage to the house was extensive and would require rebuilding pieces “from scratch”, which would add another $125,000 to the cost and another two months to the schedule.

Wanklyn made another payment of $93,750 that month.

“As the project languished for the remainder of the summer, Mr. Bertrand falsely told Ms. Wanklyn that he was awaiting city permits,” according to the decision.

In September, Wanklyn was told the project had hit another hurdle, the court heard. He was quoted an additional $102,017.28 for the cost of removing asbestos and repairing other structural problems. The asbestos was removed in October 2017, but “no substantial work was performed on the project thereafter,” according to the decision.

Between October 2017 and August 2018, Wanklyn was presented with more explanations (most of them false) for the delays, as well as a growing bill.

“Ms. Wanklyn, now justifiably suspicious of everything Mr. Bertrand had been telling her, demanded to see the defendants’ receipts for work performed up to that point. They refused to provide them to her,” the decision said, adding that Wanklyn again He demanded a refund to no avail.

The contract was officially terminated on Aug. 31, 2018. Wanklyn ended up hiring another contractor to complete the work on her home, which cost her $995,025.41, according to the decision.


The civil lawsuit

Wanklyn launched court proceedings in October 2018, but no “substantial steps” were taken to resolve the case until earlier this year.

The judge found that Wanklyn had proven a breach of contract.

“Defendants promised to complete the renovation, at every stage, within a time frame measured in weeks and for a fixed price that continued to grow, and then failed to deliver as promised,” the decision says.

“Instead, after approximately 18 months of inactivity, Ms. Wanklyn had received only interior demolition, asbestos abatement and some minor electrical and plumbing work.”

The contractor was also found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, meaning he gave Wanklyn false information which “induced Ms Wanklyn to pay them amounts she would not otherwise have paid”, the court heard.

The court also considered evidence about how much of Wanklyn’s money was spent on work at his home, finding that only $17,363.66 could be clearly linked to work on the project. Betrand acknowledged in court that his payments were “intermingled” and used for other projects, including the renovation of his own home, something the judge described as “troubling.”

In total, the contractor was ordered to pay $732,362 in damages to Wanklyn to compensate her for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, effectively reimbursing her for money she paid for work that was never performed.

Bertrand and his company were also ordered to pay Wanklyn $10,000 in punitive damages, far less than the $50,000 she was seeking.

“Ms. Wanklyn entrusted defendants with a significant portion of her net worth, leaving her vulnerable to the type of abuse of that trust in which defendants engaged,” the decision said.

“In effect, the defendants lied to her on multiple occasions in an effort to keep her committed to the contract.”

However, the court was not convinced that the contractor “intended” to violate the contract, deceive Wanklyn or use his money for other purposes.

“Rather, it appears that they intended to perform the work eventually, but were unable to adequately manage the project or see it through to completion,” the decision says.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *