B.C woman awarded nearly $750K in court case against contractor

A stock image of construction tools. (Pexels/Ono Kosuki)

A B.C. woman has been awarded nearly $750,000 in damages in a dispute with a contractor who strung her along 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 the money she paid was diverted to other projects. The company, at the time, was doing business as Elite Life & Home Painting & Renovations.

"After paying them a total of $771,207.96 and waiting over a year and a half for the work to be done, she finally lost faith in them and hired a different contractor to complete the job," the decision says.

In 2017, Wanklyn lived alone in a lakefront Kelowna home, according to the decision. In January of that year, she hired Bertrand to build a guest suite in the home, paying him approximately $76,000. That project went according to plan.

"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 that he could do the work and have it essentially completed while she was away."

The stalled renovation

The renovation included demolition, reconfiguring the home's layout, replacing a deck, installing central air conditioning and a central vacuum system, replacing the roof, installing new plumbing, replacing the hot water tank and rewiring the home. New floors, lighting, and a fresh paint job were also among the work to be done.

Bertrand quoted his client $379,575 for the work, and the court heard he was paid $327,245 by Wanklyn before she left for her trip.

"She was expecting to arrive home to a newly-renovated house. Instead, she was shocked to find that the house had been gutted and progress halted," the court heard.

"Ms. Wanklyn asked for her money back. Mr. Bertrand refused to provide a refund, explaining that her money had already been spent purchasing the materials needed for the renovation. This appears to have been untrue."

Bertrand explained the state of the home by saying he had discovered rot in the home's wooden support beams and that he had "withheld that information … because he had not wanted to spoil her holiday," the decision said.

The estimate Betrand provided for repairing the beams was $50,000 – an amount Wanklyn paid in full.

But the work did not progress.

In July of 2017, the court heard, Wanklyn was told the damage to the home was extensive and would require parts to be rebuilt "from scratch," which would add another $125,000 to the cost and another two months to the timeline.

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

"As the project languished during the rest of the summer, Mr. Bertrand told Ms. Wanklyn, falsely, that he was awaiting municipal permits," according to the decision.

By September, Wanklyn was told the project had hit another roadblock, the court heard. She was quoted an additional $102,017.28 for the cost of removing asbestos and repairing other structural issues. The asbestos was removed in October of 2017 but "no substantial work was done on the project thereafter," according to the decision.

Between October of 2017 and August of 2018, Wanklyn was presented with more explanations – most of them false – for the delays, as well as an ever-mounting bill.

"Ms. Wanklyn, now justifiably suspicious about everything Mr. Bertrand had been telling her, demanded to see the defendants’ receipts for the work done to that point. They refused to provide them," the decision said, adding that Wanklyn again 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, the decision said.

The civil claim

Wanklyn initiated court proceedings in October of 2018, but no "substantive steps" were taken to resolve the case until earlier this year.

The judge found Wanklyn had proven breach of contract.

"The defendants promised to complete the renovation, at each stage, within a time span measured in weeks and for a fixed price that kept growing, and then failed to do what they promised," the decision said.

"Instead, after about 18 months of inactivity, Ms. Wanklyn had received only an interior demolition, asbestos abatement, and some minor electrical and plumbing work."

The contractor was also found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation – meaning they gave Wanklyn information that was untrue that "induced Ms. Wanklyn to pay them amounts that 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 her home, finding that only $17,363.66 could be clearly linked to work on the project. Betrand acknowledged to the court that her payments were "co-mingled" and used for other projects, including a 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 the money she paid for work that was never done.

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

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

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

The court was not persuaded, however, that the contractor "set out" to breach the contract, to deceive Wanklyn or to use her money for other purposes.

"Rather, it appears that they intended to do the work eventually, but were incapable of properly managing the project or seeing it through to completion," the decision said.