Citation: ☼ Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
2022 BCPC 126  
Date:  
☼20220624  
File No:  
C-18422  
Registry: Port Coquitlam  
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  
Small Claims Act, RSBC 1996, c 430  
BETWEEN:  
CANADIAN QUALITY STUCCO LTD.  
CLAIMANT  
AND:  
SUNBIR KAUR BOPARAI  
SARABJEET PANGLI  
DEFENDANTS  
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  
OF THE  
HONOURABLE JUDGE W. LEE  
Counsel for the Claimant:  
Appearing for the Defendants:  
Place of Hearing:  
J. Gill  
S. Pangli  
Port Coquitlam, B.C.  
February 3 and 4, 2022  
June 24, 2022  
Dates of Hearing:  
Date of Judgment:  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
1
Introduction  
[1]  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. (the “Claimant”) sues Mr. Sarabjeet Pangli and Ms.  
Sunbit Kaur Boparai (together the “Defendants”) for the balance due on an invoice for  
stuccowork done at a home located at 828 Crestwood Drive, Coquitlam B.C.  
[2]  
The Defendants, who are married, allege that the Claimant did the work  
negligently and the Defendants counterclaim for the costs of the repair work.  
Witnesses  
[3]  
The following persons testified on behalf of Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. through  
a Punjabi interpreter:  
a) Lakhvir Singh Dhaliwal, the owner of the Claimant.  
b) Japtesh Singh Sidhu, an employee of the Claimant.  
[4]  
Sarabjeet Pangli testified on behalf of himself and Sunbir Kaur Boparai. The  
parties agreed that Ms. Boparai did not need to attend court because she did not have  
any involvement with the stuccowork.  
[5]  
The Defendants also called as a witness Jasbir Brink.  
The Evidence  
[6]  
The owner of Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. is Lakhvir Singh Dhaliwal. The  
Claimant has been in operation for 12 years installing stucco.  
[7]  
The defendant, Ms. Sunbir Kaur Boparai, was the registered owner of the house  
being constructed at 828 Crestwood Drive, Coquitlam B.C. Mr. Sarabjeet Pangli was  
overseeing the construction. He is a builder of residential homes, having constructed  
some 20 houses since 2011. The house at the centre of this dispute was to be the  
home of the Defendants. During the course of its construction, Mr. Pangli needed to  
have stucco applied to the exterior of the house.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
2
[8]  
Jasbir Brink is an acquaintance of both Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Pangli, and he  
referred Mr. Pangli to Mr. Dhaliwal for the stuccowork.  
[9]  
Before I describe the evidence. I need to set out my understanding of the stucco  
process.  
[10] In order to prepare a wood surface for stuccowork, a waterproof layer is laid onto  
the wood. In this case, the Claimant used waterproof building paper. Next, a rainscreen  
is applied on top of the paper to allow for water drainage. Stucco is then applied in  
layers. The first layer is called a scratch coat. At times in the evidence, this layer was  
referred to as a “scratch code” but I believe this was in error. A second layer of stucco is  
applied over the scratch coat and then the final exterior layer, which displays the  
exterior texture and stucco colouring.  
[11] Sometime in June or July 2018, Mr. Pangli met with Mr. Dhaliwal to discuss the  
stucco project. The circumstances of this meeting are in dispute and I will describe each  
parties’ version of how the agreement came to be.  
Lakhvir Singh Dhaliwal’s Evidence About the Written Contract  
[12] In July 2018, Mr. Dhaliwal met with Mr. Pangli to discuss the stucco contract. Mr.  
Dhaliwal was accompanied by an employee, Japtesh Singh Sidhu. Mr. Pangli and Mr.  
Dhaliwal came to an agreement regarding the work. At Mr. Dhaliwal’s directions, Mr.  
Sidhu wrote out the contract terms. A portion of the contract read as follows:  
Price for acrylic stucco for 3 sides & front ready for stone  
Wrapping Tyvek paper  
Scaffold & Rain Screen  
Meshwire and Plaster Stop  
Scratch Coat  
4000  
3000  
6500  
5,000  
4000  
Final Coat of Cement  
Final Coat of Acrylic Paint Stucco  
4000  
26,500 CAD  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
3
Extra for Front Ready For Stone  
(Scaffold, Meshwire, Rainscreen, Scratch Coat)  
4000 CAD  
Note: Owner will pay for rainscreen  
Sub Total  
GST  
30,500 CAD  
1525 CAD  
32,025.00  
Balance  
[13] Mr. Pangli made a first payment of $8,000 by a cheque dated August 8, 2018.  
[14] On October 10, 2018, Mr. Dhaliwal texted Mr. Pangli saying, “I need cheque  
today.”  
[15] On October 10, 2018, the parties met to discuss the work. At that time, Mr. Pangli  
made a second payment of $7,360 by cheque dated October 10, 2018. This brought the  
total payments up to $15,360.  
[16] Mr. Pangli was dissatisfied with the quality of the work. Because of this, Mr.  
Pangli wrote additional terms onto the original contract document as follows:  
1. Beside the pre-printed words “Security Deposit $,” Mr. Pangli wrote:  
8000.00 + 7360.00 rest will be paid when job is done right.  
2. At the bottom of the document, Mr. Pangli wrote:  
*All Deficiencies shown by the owner will be fixed before final payment.  
*Owner has pointed out ruff surface (waves) around the house.  
Canadian Quality will fix that issue.  
3. Under each parties’ signatures was written the date “Oct 10, 2018.”  
[17] The parties then signed the contract.  
Sarabjeet Pangli’s Evidence About the Written Contract  
[18] Mr. Pangli said he met with Mr. Dhaliwal in June 2018 to discuss the project and  
Mr. Dhaliwal provided a verbal quote for $26,500. The evidence of Jasbir Brink is that  
he used the Claimant for stuccowork on three to four projects and there was never a  
written contract.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
4
[19] Mr. Pangli made the initial payment of $8,000 by cheque dated August 8, 2018.  
[20] Sometime in the fall of 2018, there was a dispute about the quality of the work.  
In October 2018, Mr. Dhaliwal requested a further payment. Mr. Pangli agreed to  
provide a second payment of $7,360 and Mr. Dhaliwal agreed to repair the deficiencies.  
[21] On October 10, 2018, Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Pangli met at the job site. Mr.  
Dhaliwal presented Mr. Pangli with a written contract. Mr. Pangli said there were no  
names on the contract and Mr. Dhaliwal asked Mr. Pangli to write in the names. Mr.  
Pangli also inserted the additional terms I referred to above, specifically confirmation of  
the payments of $8,000 and $7,360, and for the Claimant to repair the deficiencies  
before final payment was due.  
[22] Mr. Pangli also agreed to pay another $4,000 for additional work. He said this  
decision was made after the initial verbal agreement, and so could not have been part  
of an original written agreement as alleged by Mr. Dhaliwal.  
[23] Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Pangli then signed the contract, with each of them writing in  
the date of October 10, 2018, under their signatures.  
The Evidence Regarding the Construction Work  
[24] It is clear that there was an initial contract price of $26,500, and a further  
agreement for additional work at a cost of $4,000. This brought the contract price up to  
$30,500.  
[25] Mr. Pangli also agreed to pay for a higher quality rainscreen, called a Keene Dri  
Wall Rainscreen. Mr. Pangli said he agreed to pay for the difference in price between  
the rainscreen that was part of the original quote and the higher priced Keene  
rainscreen only if it resulted in a better stucco finish. There is nothing in writing to  
confirm this was a term of the agreement between the parties.  
[26] The Claimant started the stuccowork in June or July 2018.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
5
[27] By late September 2018, Mr. Pangli expressed concern about the quality of the  
work.  
[28] On October 9, 2018, Mr. Dhaliwal texted Mr. Pangli to say:  
Hlo veer…yeah we can fix everything  
but we have to be a little patient. The  
thing is I haven’t got money even fr the  
parts which I made ready for stone..  
you will be fully satisfied with job..  
deficiencies will be covered in stone  
Sorry covered in paint  
Nd u haven’t given me money even for  
driwall rainscreen also  
[29] Mr. Pangli responded that he will give the money for the “scratch code” and the  
rainscreen. As I indicated earlier in my Reasons, I think “scratch code” is supposed to  
refer to the “scratch coat.”  
[30] There followed text messages between the parties in October and November  
2018, and then in March and May 2019.  
[31] On May 15, 2019, Mr. Pangli sent Mr. Dhaliwal a text message giving the  
Claimant one week to finish the job or he would get someone else to finish it.  
[32] On May 19, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal texted Mr. Pangli to say Mr. Pangli had not yet  
chosen the stucco colour. Mr. Dhaliwal also said:  
Nd there will be extra 1000 dollar for  
finishing back posts in stucco  
[33] Mr. Pangli told Mr. Dhaliwal that he had already selected the colour. Mr. Pangli  
put into evidence a stucco colour sample that he signed and dated May 10, 2019. It was  
not clear when Mr. Pangli gave this signed sample to the Claimant.  
[34] Mr. Pangli did not respond to the text message about the additional $1,000  
charge for covering the back posts in stucco. In his testimony, he denied agreeing to  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
6
pay this charge. There is nothing in writing showing that Mr. Pangli confirmed or  
disputed this charge.  
[35] On May 30, 2019, Mr. Pangli texted Mr. Dhaliwal to say:  
You didn’t show up!!!  
[36] On June 5, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal texted Mr. Pangli to say:  
Hlo bro…u gave me only 8000 dollars  
till now for stucco..and price is 26500  
CAD..our job is 85 percent complete.  
So u have to pay for paint at building  
supplies. The rest of the money u paid  
was for the front which was made ready  
for stone and the rainscreen which i  
bought for u..so a large amount of  
money is pending on your side. You  
can hold only 10 to. 15 percent of  
money. Thanks  
[37] The text message does not refer to Mr. Pangli’s second payment of $7,360 made  
by cheque dated October 10, 2018, although there is an unexplained reference to the  
“rest of the money u paid…”  
[38] On June 14, 2019, Mr. Pangli texted Mr. Dhaliwal to say:  
I do not want you to enter my jobsite.  
You lie 24/7, you just told me that  
crown guy came looked at all the cracks  
and he is saying the paint will cover the  
cracks!!! We both agreed that you need  
to fix the cracks before you paint with  
the base code!!! When I Spoke to the guy he  
said he didn’t even come to the jobsite  
and he doesn’t guarantee about the cracks.  
What was the point talking to about this  
for days and then you want to cover  
everything with paint!!! What a waste of  
time dealing with you.  
[39] On July 9, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal sent Mr. Pangli a text message to say Mr. Pangli  
had only paid $8,000, the contract price was $26,500 and the remaining amount owing  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
7
was $18,500 plus GST. The written contract did not set out GST as an additional sum  
owing. Mr. Dhaliwal again referred to other money paid to him, stating:  
…rest of the money u gave me was for front parts  
made ready for stone by us and we  
bought rainscreen also  
[40] Mr. Dhaliwal did not mention the second payment of $7,360 or the extra charge  
of $4,000.  
[41] In another message sent July 9, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal told Mr. Pangli there was a  
further $1,200 owed for “stucco on posts on the back and the places on the corner  
where we installed extra stucco as u reduced stone work”. Mr. Dhaliwal said the amount  
owing was $21,025.  
[42] There is nothing in writing to show that Mr. Pangli confirmed or denied the  
obligation to pay the extra $1,200 charge. In his testimony, Mr. Pangli denied agreeing  
to this charge.  
[43] On September 19, 2019, Mr. Pangli texted Mr. Dhaliwal to say:  
You called last week and said you will  
come by to fix the job on Wednesday  
Sept 18. Once again you didn’t show  
up. I am not waiting for you anymore  
and getting someone else to fix your  
deficiencies. I am also sending you  
some pictures of the windows and soft  
that you didn’t cover when you did the  
stucco and  
And got stucco all over them  
[44] Mr. Dhaliwal replied that day:  
Brother trims are datocut that’s why  
they are to be filled with cement  
and also these days are rainy and  
weather is not good that’s why we don’t  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
8
come. also we covered all the windows  
and door with paper and tapes while  
doing stucco…  
[45] Mr. Pangli responded:  
You were supposed to come yesterday  
and it didn’t rain yesterday. Also if you  
had covered the doors and windows  
then how did this stucco got all over  
them!!!  
[46] On November 6, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal sent to Mr. Pangli by text an invoice issued  
by the Claimant to “Sarab” dated October 25, 2019, totalling $38,325. This amount was  
arrived at using different prices for the six items listed in the written contract. The  
Claimant is not seeking payment based on this invoice.  
[47] Mr. Pangli responded by text to Mr. Dhaliwal to say the painter cleaned the  
stucco paint from the soffits and window trims. Mr. Pangli reiterated that the Claimant  
had to repair the deficiencies first before payment was made. Mr. Pangli acknowledged  
a threat by the Claimant to place a lien on the property. The message included the  
following comment:  
The only way you will get paid is if you fix your deficiencies and I am going to  
deduct the painter’s cost and damage to the moulding corners. I have given you  
enough time to fix the issues but you never showed up, now its winter and stucco  
can’t be redone at this time.  
[48] On November 19, 2019, the Claimant filed a Claim of Builder’s Lien against the  
property, claiming $24,025. On March 31, 2020, the Defendants issued a Notice to  
Commence an Action to enforce the lien claim. The Claimant did not pursue the lien  
claim.  
[49] The Claimant put into evidence a number of invoices issued by Crown Building  
Supplies for materials relating to the project, dated from June 5, 2018 to December 16,  
2019. The first invoice suggests that the work began in approximately June 2018. The  
last invoice of December 16, 2019, suggests the Claimant stopped work sometime  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
9
around December 16, 2019. The Claimant did not put into evidence any work records or  
time sheets to show when they actually worked at the property.  
[50] Mr. Dhaliwal testified that the Claimant would do any touch-up work after  
completion of the work. He also said the touch-up work did not occur because the  
Defendants had not paid the full contract price.  
[51] In cross-examination, Mr. Dhaliwal agreed that the project required the  
application of fine texture stucco for the final coat. Invoice # IN120327 issued by Crown  
Building Supplies to the Claimant dated June 11, 2019, listed purchases of both Adex  
Elasticoat Fine Regular and Adex Elasticoat Medium Regular. Invoice # IN120851  
issued by Crown Building Supplies to the Claimant dated June 17, 2019, also listed  
purchases of both Adex Elasticoat Fine Regular and Adex Elasticoat Medium Regular.  
Mr. Dhaliwal suggested the store invoices were incorrect and he denies using medium  
texture stucco.  
[52] Mr. Pangli testified that there were significant deficiencies and he referred to  
various pictures in support of his claim. Among other things, Mr. Pangli alleged as  
follows:  
1. The “mud stops” were not properly installed to protect the wood frame.  
2. A cement coating, to be applied as part of the stucco process, should have  
been slowly applied over three days, but was completed in one day.  
3. “Flashing,” which I understand is a thin sheet of metal, should have been  
extended at least one inch past the building edges to provide waterproofing.  
4. Tyvek paper should have been installed under any torched-on material to  
provide waterproofing.  
5. There is water damage to the wood as shown by changes in colour of the  
wood.  
6. The value of the home has been reduced.  
[53] I asked Mr. Pangli if he had an expert evidence to support his claims about  
deficiencies. Mr. Pangli only had the inspection report from Stinger Home Inspections,  
which I will discuss later. Mr. Pangli said he would leave the question of whether  
deficiencies existed for me to decide.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
10  
The Credibility and Reliability of the Witnesses  
[54] The evidence of Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Pangli differed and I must assess their  
credibility and reliability.  
[55] I refer to the leading decision of Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 252 (BC CA),  
where the Court stated:  
The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of  
evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal  
demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must  
reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the  
probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test  
of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the  
preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would  
readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. Only thus  
can a Court satisfactorily appraise the testimony of quick-minded, experienced  
and confident witnesses, and of those shrewd persons adept in the half-lie and of  
long and successful experience in combining skilful exaggeration with partial  
suppression of the truth. Again a witness may testify what he sincerely believes  
to be true, but he may be quite honestly mistaken. For a trial Judge to say "I  
believe him because I judge him to be telling the truth", is to come to a  
conclusion on consideration of only half the problem. In truth it may easily be  
self-direction of a dangerous kind.  
The trial Judge ought to go further and say that evidence of the witness he  
believes is in accordance with the preponderance of probabilities in the case and,  
if his view is to command confidence, also state his reasons for that conclusion.  
The law does not clothe the trial Judge with a divine insight into the hearts and  
minds of the witnesses. And a Court of Appeal must be satisfied that the trial  
Judge's finding of credibility is based not on one element only to the exclusion of  
others, but is based on all the elements by which it can be tested in the particular  
case.  
[56] I also refer to the decision Hrynkiw v. Central City Brewers & Distillers Ltd., 2020  
BCSC 1640, where the Court stated:  
[85] The principles that govern the assessment of the credibility of a witness  
are summarized in Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, aff'd 2012 BCCA  
296, as follows:  
[186] Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of  
a witness' testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a  
witness and the accuracy of the evidence that the witness  
provides... .The art of assessment involves examination of various  
factors such as the ability and opportunity to observe events, the  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
11  
firmness of his memory, the ability to resist the influence of interest  
to modify his recollection, whether the witness' evidence  
harmonizes with independent evidence that has been accepted,  
whether the witness changes his testimony during direct and cross-  
examination, whether the witness' testimony seems unreasonable,  
impossible, or unlikely, whether a witness has a motive to lie, and  
the demeanour of a witness generally... . Ultimately, the validity of  
the evidence depends on whether the evidence is consistent with  
the probabilities affecting the case as a whole and shown to be in  
existence at the time (Farnya at para. 356). [Citations omitted]  
[57] For reasons that follow, I have concluded that I cannot rely on the evidence of  
Mr. Dhaliwal.  
[58] During cross-examination, Mr. Dhaliwal did not respond to many questions, even  
after I repeated the questions or re-phrased them. Taking into account any language  
difficulties, I found Mr. Dhaliwal was evasive when giving his answers.  
[59] Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Pangli disagreed on how the written contract came into  
being. Mr. Dhaliwal said he had a written version of the contract from July 2018 that did  
not include any of the additions he claimed Mr. Pangli inserted on October 10, 2018.  
However, he never produced this version of the contract, submitting into evidence only  
the complete contract signed by the parties on October 10, 2018. I have doubts whether  
this shortened version of the contract exists.  
[60] Mr. Dhaliwal said the initial written agreement from July 2018 contained the term  
“Extra for front ready for stone” at a cost of $4,000. It does not make sense to refer to  
an item as an extra unless that was a term agreed to after the initial agreement.  
[61] Mr. Dhaliwal said the Claimant only purchased and applied fine texture stucco  
coating to the home. Two Crown Building Supplies invoices show the purchase of both  
fine and medium texture stucco coating. Mr. Dhaliwal’s suggestion that Crown Building  
Supplies twice made an error in their invoices is neither likely nor convincing.  
[62] Taking into account the above, I do not find Mr. Dhaliwal’s evidence to be  
credible.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
12  
[63] The amount claimed by Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. also fluctuated over time.  
a) The original quoted price was $26,500 and there was a further agreed-upon  
charge of $4,000. This totalled $30,500 plus GST of $1,525, for a total of  
$32,025.  
b) On August 8, 2018, Mr. Pangli paid $8,000.  
c) On October 10, 2018, Mr. Pangli paid a further $7,360, bringing the total paid  
to $15,360.  
d) On May 19, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal texted Mr. Pangli to claim a further $1,000.  
e) On June 5, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal texted Mr. Pangli to say the amount owed was  
$26,500 and only $8,000 was paid.  
f) On July 9, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal texted Mr. Pangli to say the amount owed was  
$26,500, only $8,000 was paid, and Mr. Pangli owed a further $1,200.  
g) On October 25, 2019, the Claimant issued an invoice to the Defendants for  
$38,325 based on amounts that differed from the written contract.  
h) On November 19, 2019, the Claimant filed a Claim of Builder’s Lien for the  
sum of $24,025 due and owing as of October 25, 2019. This differed from the  
amount of the invoice issued on October 25, 2019.  
i) On February 26, 2020, the Claimant filed a Notice of Claim seeking $24,025  
based on a claim of $32,025 ($30,500 plus GST $1,525 = $32,025) less a  
payment of $8,000, leaving $24,025 due.  
j) At trial, the Claimant submitted that the amount due was $22,182.62. The was  
based on the sum of $32,025 plus $3,417.62 for the rainscreen costs, $1,200  
for work on posts, another $1,000 for extra work on stone posts, less  
payments of $8,000 and $7,360.  
[64] Given Mr. Dhaliwal’s own uncertainty about the amount claimed, I do not find his  
evidence to be reliable.  
[65] The evidence of Japtesh Singh Sidhu did not help to support Mr. Dhaliwal. Mr.  
Sidhu testified that the stucco job only took 2 ½ weeks to complete. That made little  
sense given the invoices from Crown Building Supplies were dated from June 5, 2018 to  
December 16, 2019.  
[66] The evidence of Mr. Pangli did not have the degree of inconsistency found in Mr.  
Dhaliwal’s evidence, and overall I prefer his evidence.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
13  
What Were the Contract Terms?  
[67] The original contract was the verbal agreement for stuccowork at a cost of  
$26,500 plus a further $4,000 for listed extras.  
[68] Mr. Dhaliwal said Mr. Pangli agreed to pay for the costs of a rainscreen at the  
cost of $3,417.62. Mr. Pangli said he only agreed to pay for the difference in costs  
between the original rainscreen and the upgraded rainscreen, and only if the upgraded  
rainscreen resulted in a better finish.  
[69] The written contract makes two references to a rainscreen, with price amounts  
associated with both. This is consistent with Mr. Pangli’s evidence that he only agreed  
to pay for the cost difference between the original rainscreen and any upgraded version.  
I accept Mr. Pangli’s evidence in this regard.  
[70] I do not accept that the purchase of the upgraded rainscreen was contingent on  
there being a better stucco finish. The written contract contains a typewritten clause  
that reads as follows:  
Acceptance  
This contract is approve & accepted. I understand there are no oral agreements  
or understanding between the parties on this agreement written terms, provisions  
plains (if any) specifications in this contract in the entire agreement between the  
parties, change in this agreement shall be done by written changes order only  
and with the express. Approval both parties change may incure additional  
change.  
[71] As badly worded as this clause was, it remains clear that any agreement making  
payment for the upgraded rainscreen contingent on a better stucco finish had to be in  
writing. As the written agreement failed to include such a term, the Defendants’  
obligation to pay for the rainscreen was not conditional.  
[72] Unfortunately, I received no evidence about the costs for the original rainscreen.  
The Crown Building Supplies invoices show payments for Dri Wall Rainscreen Keene  
for $2,250 (June 5, 2018 invoice) and $750 (August 7, 2018 invoice). This totals $3,000.  
There were added costs for staples. With taxes, the Claimant sought a total of  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
14  
$3,417.62. Since the claim is for the cost difference between the original rainscreen and  
the Keene rainscreen, I will fix that amount at $1,500.  
[73] I turn to the claim for extra work for what Mr. Dhaliwal described as the posts  
($1,200) and the stone posts ($1,000). Mr. Dhaliwal provided limited details of this work  
and almost no information on how these charges were calculated. The only written  
evidence about these claims came from two text messages sent by Mr. Dhaliwal with no  
supporting documents or invoices to substantiate the claims. Mr. Pangli denied any  
agreement to pay these costs. Given my concerns about the credibility and reliability of  
Mr. Dhaliwal’s evidence, I find that the Claimant has not met the burden of proving  
these claims on the balance of probability and I do not accept them.  
[74] There is no dispute that Mr. Pangli paid the sum of $8,000 and $7,360, a total of  
$15,360.  
[75] I arrive at the balance owing under the contract as follows:  
Original Contract Price  
Extras  
$26,500  
$4,000  
Rainscreen  
Paid  
$1,500  
($15,360)  
$16,640  
Balance  
Were Changes to the Agreement Binding on the Claimant?  
[76] The parties’ original agreement was made verbally in approximately June or July  
2018. The written contract was entered into on October 10, 2018. Mr. Pangli wrote in  
additional terms requiring completion of deficiencies before final payment was due.  
Were these additional terms to the agreement binding on the Claimant?  
[77] For a contract to be binding, the parties must exchange “consideration.” This  
refers to some right, interest, profit or benefit provided to a party, or for the other party to  
give something up.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
15  
[78] In the decision Rosas v. Toca, 2018 BCCA 191 (), the Court stated at  
para. 183:  
…When parties to a contract agree to vary its terms, the variation should be  
enforceable without fresh consideration, absent duress, unconscionability, or  
other public policy concerns, which would render an otherwise valid term  
unenforceable. A variation supported by valid consideration may continue to be  
enforceable for that reason, but a lack of fresh consideration will no longer be  
determinative.  
[79] Mr. Dhaliwal agreed to the modification of the verbal agreement and to the terms  
set out in the written contract of October 10, 2018, as shown by his signature to the  
written contract. The contract is binding on the Claimant despite the lack of new  
consideration from the Defendants.  
Was Payment Postponed Until All Deficiencies Were Repaired?  
[80] Was the payment of the balance owing under the contract, being $16,640, only  
due after the Claimant repaired all deficiencies?  
[81] In order for a contract term to be enforceable, it must be certain. I refer to the  
decision Babich v. Babich, 2015 BCPC 175 (), where the court set out at  
paragraph 16 the elements of a contract. One such element was described as follows:  
Certainty of the agreed terms: Before a binding contract can exist, the parties  
must agree on all essential terms and express themselves so that their meaning  
can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty.  
[82] The written contract states that the balance is payable “when job is done right.”  
[83] This condition is vague and unenforceable. There is no objective standard to  
determine “when the job is done right.” Mr. Dhaliwal felt the job was done right. Mr.  
Pangli disagreed. There were clearly deficiencies as referred to in the report by Glenn  
Duxbury, which I will discuss later. Because that report came out some 2.5 years after  
the written contract was signed, it does not explain “when the job is done right.”  
[84] Another term of the contract stated:  
*All Deficiencies shown by owner will be fixed before final payment.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
16  
[85] The reference to deficiencies is again vague. There was no listing of the  
deficiencies in the written contract. The Duxbury report found that deficiencies existed  
but it cannot be used to define what the parties meant by “deficiencies” in the written  
contract. I find that the contract term to fix unspecified deficiencies before final payment  
is too vague to be enforceable.  
[86] I conclude that the requirement for payment is not postponed until the Claimant  
has remedied all deficiencies.  
[87] I turn now to review the reports submitted by each party and to determine the  
admissibility of the reports into evidence.  
Review of Expert Reports  
[88] The rules of evidence in Small Claims Court proceedings are somewhat relaxed.  
Section 16 of the Small Claims Act allows the court to admit as evidence any oral or  
written testimony, record or other thing so long as the court considers the evidence  
credible or trustworthy, and relevant. This is so even if that evidence is not admissible in  
another court under the laws of evidence.  
[89] Rule 10 of the Small Claims Rules deals with the giving of expert’s evidence. The  
purpose of expert evidence is to provide an opinion to the court on a matter that  
requires expertise. Otherwise, opinion evidence is generally not admissible as evidence.  
[90] Under the Small Claims Rules, a person qualified as an expert in a particular  
area of knowledge may give expert opinion evidence on that specific subject. Rule 10(5)  
refers to the requirement to provide an expert’s statement of qualifications.  
[91] Both parties submitted written reports. The Claimant provided the report of Glenn  
Duxbury, dated May 17, 2021. The Defendants submitted the report of Stinger Home  
Inspections, prepared by Brejesh Davda following an inspection on July 7, 2020.  
[92] The report of Mr. Duxbury is clearly admissible as evidence. The report attaches  
Mr. Duxbury’s Curriculum Vitae and satisfies the requirement for a statement of  
qualifications. I will discuss the contents of the report later in my decision.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
17  
[93] The report of Stinger Home Inspections was written by “Brejesh Davda CPBC  
#62504.” “CPBC” likely refers to a licenced home inspector from Consumer Protection  
BC. The report also has a watermark referring to the International Association of  
Certified Home Inspectors - InterNACHI. However, there is no actual statement of  
qualifications. Mr. Davda was not called as a witness to the trial and there is no  
evidence of his qualifications.  
[94] Although s. 16 of the Small Claims Act gives me the discretion to allow evidence  
I consider to be credible and relevant, the Rules clearly set out a higher standard in the  
case of expert evidence. As there is no confirmation of Mr. Davda’s qualifications to give  
expert evidence, I do not accept his report for the purposes of providing expert opinion  
evidence. I believe Mr. Pangli was aware of this concern. During his evidence, Mr.  
Pangli said that he would leave it to me to assess whether deficiencies existed.  
[95] Notwithstanding my view that the Stinger Home Inspection report is not an expert  
opinion report, I will still refer to the report. As Mr. Davda is a certified home inspector, I  
accept his report as a written statement of an independent witness that sets out his  
observations.  
The Report of Stinger Home Inspections  
[96] The date of the inspection by Brejesh Davda of Stinger Home Inspections  
occurred on July 7, 2020. The “General Summary” of the report sets out the following  
observations:  
During the inspection, there were multiple signs of uneven stucco walls, bumps,  
chips, rusted fastener stains, drips and edge gaps throughout the exterior walls.  
The stucco finish coat did not appear to be level and even throughout the  
majority of the surface plains which gives the home a bumpy appearance which  
also effects the overall appearance of the house and may depreciate the value of  
the house. I have attached some pictures on pg 31-32 that were taken at night  
with lights on to show the uneven surface more clearly.  
The edge panel sections along the sides of the basement windows were all  
different sizes varying from 4.5”- 9” and did not cover the exterior wall water  
proofing and framing in areas which can lead to water egress and rot damage to  
the home.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
18  
The stucco will require a certified contractor to further investigate for possible  
repairs which will include resurfacing the entire acrylic coating to properly match  
the existing finish. Conducting patch repairs will make the appearance worse.  
[97] The report summary said the value of the house may have depreciated but I do  
not accept this statement as evidence since it is only speculation. In any event, the  
Defendants have not counterclaimed for a loss in value of the home.  
The Report of Glenn Duxbury  
[98] The Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Duxbury said he is a “professional Home & Building  
Consultant & Master Inspector.” He has over 30 years of experience documenting  
deficiencies and writing reports, and has provided expert evidence in past court  
proceedings.  
[99] Mr. Duxbury went to the house for a site visit on April 9, 2021. His report was  
printed on May 17, 2021. Mr. Duxbury set out the questions asked of him and his  
responses as follows:  
Opinions  
What was the overall quality of the stucco application?  
In my opinion, the quality of the stucco application I observed was  
average, at best, overall.  
[100] Mr. Duxbury also noted “some unprofessional issues” compared to other stucco  
finishes he has observed and said this “finish lacks quality.”  
In your further opinion, whether there are limitations pertaining to any, or such a  
stucco application?  
In my opinion & experience, there are indeed limitations regarding how  
smooth and free of surface imperfections a stucco exterior can exhibit.  
A hand-troweled application such as this must be expected to include the  
same effects of interior plastering done by hand, as another example.  
My opinion is based on the fact I have observed normal non-uniformities &  
mainly localized surface imperfections, which seem to be typical, as seen  
elsewhere. No hand-applied application such as this can achieve a  
uniform finish as well as a factory finish installed uniformly.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
19  
Concerns expressed regarding “bumps” visible, such are cosmetic, in fact  
and do not affect the stucco performance.  
[101] Mr. Duxbury went on to say that viewing the stucco surface using artificial  
lighting, as was done for the Stinger Home Inspections report, was not an accepted  
standard for documenting surface defects. He said the recognized method is to view the  
surface under normal lighting conditions.  
[102] The next question asked of Mr. Duxbury was:  
Were there, in your opinion, any other observations and/or matters you consider  
necessary to address and opine on?  
[103] Mr. Duxbury said stucco is not meant as a complete water-barrier. He continued:  
It is also my expert opinion, all the intersections between the stucco finish and  
door/window trims, electrical conduits shown on pages 6/7 of the Stinger report  
and the differential front elevation finish should have been designed to have an  
intentional 1/8 inch - 3/16 inch gap left, which would then receive an appropriate  
exterior sealant applied between the two materials.  
[104] Mr. Duxbury went on to say the lack of a flexible connection between different  
materials would guarantee cracking of the stucco.  
[105] Mr. Duxbury disagreed with an opinion expressed in the Stinger Home Inspection  
report that vertical electrical conduits on the side walls should have been covered by  
stucco. Mr. Duxbury said the stucco should have been applied to the wall before the  
conduits were installed.  
[106] In review of the report, it was clear that Mr. Duxbury equated the performance of  
the stucco with waterproofing rather than appearance. Mr. Pangli’s evidence was that  
the appearance of the stucco was a primary concern for him.  
Were There Deficiencies?  
[107] Both the reports of Glenn Duxbury and Stinger Home Inspection, as well as the  
photographs submitted by Mr. Pangli, confirm that deficiencies existed in the  
stuccowork.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
20  
[108] The observations set out in the Stinger Home Inspection report included the  
following:  
a) Uneven stucco walls  
b) Bumps (stucco finish not level)  
c) Chips  
d) Rusted fastener stains drips  
e) Edge gaps, exposed framing and gaps  
f) Exterior pipes not covered in stucco  
[109] The observations set out in the Glenn Duxbury report included the following:  
a) Lack of quality in the finish  
b) Rough finishing of the stucco, particularly at transitions with wall projections.  
c) Gaps were left showing.  
d) Lack of stucco coverage leaving some substrate exposed  
e) Some stucco lacking in apparent thickness to match the surface  
f) Localized surface imperfections caused by hand application  
[110] There were disagreements between the report writers about whether the  
appearance of the stucco surface was deficient. The most notable was about the use of  
artificial lighting by Stinger Home Inspections to identify waviness in the wall surfaces.  
Mr. Davda of Stinger Home Inspections was not qualified to give expert evidence about  
how to assess the quality of a stucco surface. Mr. Duxbury said that stucco surfaces  
should only be assessed under normal lighting conditions. However, Mr. Duxbury went  
on to say the Residential Construction Performance Guide was silent on exterior stucco,  
and he did not cite any support for his view about how to examine stucco surfaces. I am  
left uncertain about how the quality of a stucco surface should be assessed.  
[111] Mr. Duxbury equated the performance of the stucco with waterproofing rather  
than appearance. I think this ignores the perspective of a homeowner who is also  
seeking a home with an appealing exterior. It seems to me that in any stucco contract,  
there is an implied term that the finished appearance of the stucco must be presentable  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
21  
from the perspective of a reasonable bystander. The difficulty is in determining what is  
reasonably presentable.  
[112] Contract terms could specify a standard by which to assess the quality of a  
stucco surface. In this case, the contract terms were vague in saying the job is to be  
“done right” or that unnamed deficiencies are to be fixed. The contract refers to “ruff  
surface (waves)” but I am uncertain if this applies to “waves” that are shown under  
artificial lighting.  
[113] Mr. Pangli drafted the terms of the written contract referring to deficiencies and  
he is responsible for the uncertainty of the wording.  
[114] Neither report described the home’s stucco texture as being a mix of fine and  
medium texture, even though Crown Building Supply invoices showed the Claimant  
purchased two different stucco textures.  
[115] Given the above, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the  
surface appearance of the stucco was a deficiency.  
[116] Regarding other deficiencies with the stucco, the Stinger Home Inspection report  
said that exterior pipes running along the walls should have been covered in stucco.  
This was an opinion that I cannot accept because Mr. Davda was not qualified to give  
an expert opinion. The Duxbury report said the pipes should have been left away from  
the wall to allow the stucco to be applied to the wall. However, this was not an option  
available to the Claimant. The Claimant was presented with a wall with pipes attached.  
In those circumstances, I find that the Claimant should have applied stucco to cover the  
pipes fully since a partial covering was unsightly as shown in the photographs.  
[117] I turn now to discuss the remedy for the deficiencies.  
Did the Claimant Have a Right to Repair Deficiencies?  
[118] Any party that has suffered losses because of another party’s actions or inaction  
has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent further harm or loss. This is known as a  
“duty to mitigate.” Canadian Quality Stucco says that the Defendants breached their  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
22  
duty to mitigate by preventing the Claimant from repairing the deficiencies, such that I  
should not allow any claims by the Defendants for repair costs.  
[119] In the decision Jozsa v. Charlwood-Sebazco, 2016 BCSC 78 (), the court  
stated:  
[73]  
Even where an owner terminates a contract, the owner can still  
counterclaim for defective work: Keating on Construction Contracts, at p. 293.  
However, the contractor has the right to remedy any defects in the work himself,  
and if he is deprived of that right the owner’s right of set off may be  
curtailed: Wiebe v. Braun, 2011 MBQB 157, at para. 32. As stated in Obad v.  
Ontario Housing Corp., [1981] O.J. No. 282, at paras. 47-48 (H. Ct. J.):  
47  
With reference to the counterclaim or claim of set-off for damages  
arising from non-completion of the work, the effect of the defendant,  
Ducharme, telling the plaintiff to “get off the job” was to revoke the  
plaintiff’s license to continue working there. Furthermore, in a practical  
way, engaging other persons to do the work of the plaintiff, effectively  
prevented the plaintiff from completing his contract. The defendant,  
Ducharme, having thus prevented completion cannot obtain damages for  
failure of the plaintiff to complete.  
48  
With respect to the claim for damages resting on expenditures to  
correct the plaintiff’s work, it would seem that, although the defendant,  
Ducharme, is entitled to have a set-off for defective work, its obligation to  
mitigate its damages would require that it allow the plaintiff to continue,  
having in mind the reasonable probability that the plaintiff would correct its  
own work in order to obtain payment of the price. On that basis the  
defendant, Ducharme, is not entitled to have damages based on its own  
costs of correction. Alternatively, the plaintiff was obliged to correct its  
defective work and the defendant, Ducharme, having prevented the  
plaintiff from fulfilling that obligation, cannot have damages in the ordinary  
way based on its having undertaken itself to carry out such corrections.  
[120] In the decision Meszarics et al v. Hart Modular Homes et al, 2020 BCPC 234, the  
court said:  
[114] At common law, where there are deficiencies in construction work, in the  
absence of a fundamental breach, the contractor is entitled to a reasonable  
opportunity to rectify the work. In C. S. Bachly Builders Ltd. v. Lajilo, 2008  
57444 (ONSC), the claimant sought to fully set off the amount she owed to the  
builder for alleged defects in restoration work to her residence. The deficiencies  
were not so defective as to go to the root of the contract and the work have no  
value. The builder offered to fix the deficiencies but the homeowner refused him  
access and hired another builder. The trial judge found the homeowner had a  
duty to mitigate and provide the builder a reasonable opportunity to correct his  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
23  
work. Having refused the builder that opportunity, the homeowner was not  
entitled to damages based on her cost of correction. The trial judge awarded  
damages based on the builder’s cost of rectification.  
[121] In the decision Lind v. Storey, 2021 BCPC 2, the court stated:  
[83]  
There is nothing in writing specifying the manner in which Mr. Lind would  
perform the work. Nevertheless there is an implied warranty in all contracts for  
work and labour that the work will be carried out in a good and workmanlike  
manner: McCrea v. Fournier, 2017 BCPC 30 (), citing p. 5-11 from  
Goldsmith on Canadian Building Contracts.  
[84]  
In Lagrisola v. Mapa, 2018 BCPC 356 (), Judge Chettiar cites the  
following passage from Halsbury's Laws of Canada, 1st ed., vol. "Construction"  
(Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2008) at HCU-52:  
There is an implied term in a construction contract that a contractor will  
perform its work diligently and in a good and workmanlike manner. Absent  
agreement to the contrary, a contractor need not build to a standard of  
perfection, but only in a good and "workmanlike" fashion. The  
workmanship obligation requires care and skill in the physical execution of  
the specified work. [Citations omitted]  
[85]  
In A.A.A. Aluminum Products Ltd. v. Grafos, 2015 BCSC 2128 (),  
Mr. Justice Brown states:  
[20] The common law implies a warranty that construction contracts will be  
carried out in a reasonable and workmanlike manner . . . The builder’s  
obligation also extends to making good on defects and deficiencies . . .  
[Citations omitted].  
…..  
[89]  
A contractor has the right to return to a worksite and repair deficiencies:  
see Meszarics et al v. Hart Modular Homes et al, 2020 BCPC 234 (), citing  
C.S. Bachly Builders Ltd. v. Lajilo, 2008 57444 (ONSC), at para.114,  
Rocksolid v. Bertolissi, 2013 ONSC 7343 (), Don Pocock Construction Ltd.  
v. Brady, [2004] O.J. No. 688, 2004 13959 (ON SC) at para. 42; Longwell  
Enterprises Ltd. v. McGowan [(1989), 37 C.L.R. 13 (B.C. Co. Ct.)  
[90]  
In Connolly v. Greater Homes Inc., 2011 NSSC 291 () at para. 48,  
the Court stated:  
. . . the governing legal principle is that wherever it is reasonable, a party  
has a positive obligation to afford to the party alleged to have caused a  
deficiency an early opportunity to examine and to rectify it. That is  
consistent with general principles of mitigation . . . [Citations omitted]  
[91]  
If an owner fails to provide the contractor with a reasonable opportunity to  
correct the deficiencies in its work, which do not constitute a fundamental breach  
of the contract and where there is no urgency, the owner is not entitled to claim  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
24  
damages based on his or her cost to have the deficiencies repaired by a third  
party contractor: Rocksolid v. Bertolissi, at para. 92.  
[122] In the decision Bridgewater Tile Ltd. v Copa Development Corporation, 2022  
BCSC 310, the court said:  
[222] As for the obligation not to interfere with performance, the plaintiff  
analogizes its situation to that of the contractor in Jozsa v. Charlwood-  
Sebazco, 2016 BCSC 78. In Jozsa at para. 65, citing the decision Penvidic  
Contracting Co. v. International Nickel Co. of Canada, 1975 6  
(SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 267 at 276, Steeves J. confirmed that “[c]onstruction  
contracts contain an implied term that the owner will not prevent the contractor  
from accessing the worksite”.  
[223] I agree with the plaintiff’s submission that the combination of Mr. Han’s  
outburst at Mr. Nowicki, the failure to invite Bridgewater back on site and the  
ultimate dismissal of grinding as a viable remediation technique constitute a  
breach of this obligation.  
[224] But the question remains as to whether the alleged deficiencies can  
ground a claim for a set-off. It is a firmly established principle that, even where  
an owner breaches a construction contract, they can still counterclaim for  
defective work; that said, where the contractor is prevented from remediating the  
alleged defects, this may adversely impact the owner’s set-off claim: Jozsa v.  
Charlwood-Sebazco, 2016 BCSC 78 at para. 73.  
[123] In the decision Centura Building Systems (2013) Ltd. v 601 Main Partnership,  
2022 BCSC 295, the court stated:  
[104] Citing RPC Construction Ltd. v. Zhiyi Zhou, 2017 ONSC 4044 [RPC  
Construction], Centura argued that 601 Main lost its right to a set off for  
deficiencies by failing to provide Centura with the opportunity to correct the  
deficiencies. The defendants addressed this point before Centura changed its  
position on the validity of the termination of the Contract. The defendants argued  
that even if 601 Main was not entitled to terminate the Contract, they were  
entitled to a set off for correcting deficiencies and their obligation to provide  
Centura with the opportunity to remedy deficiencies arose only where it was  
reasonable to do so. They relied on Jozsa v. Charlwood-Sebazco, 2016 BCSC  
78.  
[105] I observe that in both RPC Construction and Jozsa, as well as the  
cases cited in Jozsa on this point (Wiebe v. Braun, 2011 MBQB 157 and Obad  
(c.o.b. Rockwood Drywall) v. Ontario Housing Corp., [1981] O.J. No. 282), the  
party seeking a set off for deficiencies was found to have wrongly terminated the  
contract: RPC Construction at para. 74, Jozsa at para. 65, Wiebe at para14,  
and Obad at paras. 22-23 and 31.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
25  
[106] Whether the obligation to provide a contractor with an opportunity to  
correct deficiencies arises when the contract has been validly terminated was not  
directly addressed by the parties. Nevertheless, it is my view that the intention of  
the parties as reflected in the Contract was that 601 Main would not be obliged to  
provide Centura with the opportunity to correct deficiencies upon termination  
pursuant to GC 6.5.10. First, a termination of the Contract without notice is  
inconsistent with the trade contractor remaining on site to correct deficiencies  
because the Contract under which the deficiencies would be corrected has been  
validly terminated. More directly, upon termination under GC 6.5.10, the Owner  
has the express right to “engage another party to finish the Work”. Finishing the  
work would include correcting deficiencies existing at the time of the termination.  
This conclusion is consistent with GC 2.4.3 which, as noted above, expressly  
gives 601 Main the right to a set off in relation to deficiencies subject only to the  
Construction Manager holding the opinion that it is not expedient for the  
contractor to remedy the deficiencies. Icon was the Construction Manager and  
the evidence of its site superintendent, Mr. Brezovski, leaves no doubt that by the  
time the Contract was terminated Icon had formed the opinion that it was not  
expedient to permit Centura to correct any deficiencies.  
[124] From these cases, I draw the following principles that apply to any claim or  
counterclaim against a contractor or builder:  
1. There is a presumption in every construction contract that the contractor or  
builder is entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to correct any deficiencies.  
2. This presumption may be rebutted based on the circumstances, including the  
following:  
a) The contract expressly or by necessary implication does not give the  
contractor or builder the right to correct deficiencies;  
b) The contract has been validly terminated such that the parties are  
released from their obligations under the contract;  
c) The contractor or builder, has through its words, actions or inaction,  
elected not to correct the deficiencies;  
d) The contractor or builder has fundamentally breached the contract; or  
e) The circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to permit the  
contractor or builder an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. One such  
circumstance is if the contractor or builder is unable or unwilling to correct  
the deficiencies within a reasonable time.  
3. If a party with a claim against the contractor or builder improperly prevents the  
contractor or builder from correcting any deficiencies, then this may be a  
breach of that party’s duty to mitigate and adversely affect any claim by that  
party against the contractor or builder.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
26  
Did the Defendants Unreasonably Prevent the Claimant From Performing Repair  
Work?  
[125] I start with the presumption that there is an implied contractual term that  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. had a right to repair any deficiencies. I turn now to  
consider whether the evidence rebuts this presumption. In other words, did the  
Defendants deny the Claimant the opportunity to correct the deficiencies?  
[126] The Claimant refers to the June 14, 2019 text where Mr. Pangli told Mr. Dhaliwal  
the Claimant was no longer welcome at the job site. Despite this, subsequent text  
messages show there were further requests by Mr. Pangli for the Claimant to repair the  
deficiencies. On September 19, 2019, Mr. Dhaliwal said they did not attend the work  
site as planned because of the weather. On November 6, 2019, Mr. Pangli texted Mr.  
Dhaliwal to say that the Claimant had to do repairs first before the Defendants would  
make payment.  
[127] The requests for repairs only stopped once Canadian Quality Stucco filed their  
Claim of Builder’s Lien on November 19, 2019.  
[128] The last of the Crown Building Supplies invoices is dated December 16, 2019,  
which is inconsistent with the Claimant’s submission they stopped working as of June  
14, 2019.  
[129] I find that the Defendants did not prevent the Claimant from performing repair  
work. The Claimant refused to return to the work site and elected not to correct the  
deficiencies.  
[130] I turn now to consider the counterclaim and the damages for the repair of the  
deficiencies.  
The Counterclaim  
[131] The Counterclaim is for the statutory maximum of $35,000 and is stated in the  
Defendants’ Reply and Counterclaim as follows:  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
27  
Removing current stucco and redoing the new stucco $29,500  
Metal scaffolding $3,500  
Taking off and reinstalling downpipes and cleaning paint from door +  
windows $2,000  
Removing Current Stucco and Redoing the New Stucco  
[132] Mr. Pangli obtained three quotes for the stucco repair work.  
[133] Choice Stucco Ltd. provided the highest quote at $79,800. This included the  
removal of the existing stucco. As I was not satisfied that the stucco surface was  
deficient, removal of the stucco was not justified. This solution is excessive in my view.  
[134] Gold Coast Stucco & Design Ltd. provided a quote of $58,900 for the following  
work:  
Apply Polybase Over Existing Acrylic Stucco Walls for Levelling  
Relocate Stucco Walls at Window-Well Sections  
Reposition Stucco Stop at Left-rear Corner  
Re-apply Acrylic Colour Finish texture  
Supply & Install Scaffolding  
[135] Northwest Stucco Ltd. provided the lowest quote at $39,000 for the following  
work:  
Repair will be done to 3 sections of the house only (left, right and back side)  
Relocate stucco walls at window-well sections  
Relocate stucco stop at left rear corner and rear deck  
Apply polybase for leveling where needed  
Install missing flashing on fireplace vent  
Re-apply acrylic colour finish texture  
Supply and install scaffolding  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
28  
[136] The quote set out a payment schedule as follows:  
$13,000 due when the right side of the house was finished  
$13,000 when the back side of the house was finished  
$14,950 when the left side of the house was finished.  
[137] Mr. Pangli accepted the Northwest Stucco quote and to date has paid Northwest  
Stucco the first two payments totalling $26,000. Mr. Pangli intends to have the work  
completed and pay the balance owing of $14,950.  
[138] The Northwest Stucco quote did not involve removal of existing stucco but did  
include resurfacing the stucco. Because I am not satisfied the surface quality of the  
stuccowork was deficient, I will not award compensation for resurfacing the stucco.  
Nevertheless, there were deficiencies in the stuccowork as recognized by Mr. Duxbury,  
and which was also evident in the various photographs. I will fix the amount of  
compensation for repair of the stucco at $10,000.  
Metal Scaffolding  
[139] Mr. Pangli testified that he paid $1,034.52 and a further $318.30, a total of  
$1,352.82, for the purchase of materials for the scaffolding constructed by the Claimant.  
Mr. Pangli said he purchased the materials at the request of Mr. Dhaliwal with the  
understanding that Mr. Dhaliwal would reimburse Mr. Pangli. Mr. Dhaliwal denied that  
there was any such agreement.  
[140] The written contract refers to the following items:  
Scaffold & Rainscreen  
3,000  
Extra for Front Ready For Stone  
(Scaffold, Meshwire, Rainscreen, Scratch Coat)  
4000 CAD  
[141] The contract does not say the scaffolding costs were just for its construction.  
Instead, the contract simply makes two references to “scaffold.” I find that a reasonable  
interpretation of these contract terms required the Claimant to supply the materials and  
construct the scaffolding. The Claimant wrote this part of the contract. If the Claimant  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
29  
intended to charge only for the construction of the scaffolding, it should have stated so  
in the contract.  
[142] I find that the contract required the Claimant to construct the scaffolding using  
their own materials. As such, the Defendants will be compensated for the sum of  
$1,352.82.  
Taking Off and Reinstalling Downpipes and Cleaning Paint From Door + Windows  
[143] Mr. Pangli submitted a quote from A & N Woodworking dated May 15, 2021 for  
$6,500 to replace window and door trims, soffits, and for taking down and reinstalling  
the downpipes. Mr. Pangli was able to do much of the work himself and only paid A & N  
Woodworking $2,000 for cleanup of stucco splatter and the partially covered downpipes.  
I accept that this was to rectify deficiencies and I find that this is a proper claim against  
the Claimant.  
[144] Mr. Pangli also submitted a quote from Dominion Crown Mouldings dated May  
19, 2021 for $2,434.60 for “Corner Quoins, CA2866 (12” x 12” x 2-1/2”)” plus additional  
charges for delivery and “touch-up mud.” Mr. Pangli said this was for replacement of  
moulding that the Claimant had covered in paint.  
[145] Mr. Pangli did not say why paint on the moulding, which was more likely coloured  
stucco, could not have been cleaned off. The evidence showed that cleaning off paint or  
stucco had occurred before. In a text message sent November 6, 2019, Mr. Pangli told  
Mr. Dhaliwal the painter cleaned stucco paint from the soffits and window trim; although  
the window trims could not be cleaned properly. In another instance, during his  
evidence about the A & N Woodworking quote, Mr. Pangli said he did a cleanup of  
stucco splatter. These examples suggest that cleaning off paint or stucco was a  
possibility and likely a more reasonable alternative to replacing the moulding. In light of  
this, I fix the compensation at $1,000.  
Canadian Quality Stucco Ltd. v. Pangli  
Page  
30  
Conclusion  
[146] The claim and counterclaim will be set-off against each other. I summarize these  
amounts as follows:  
Amount Owing to Claimant  
$16,640  
Less compensation for stucco repair  
Less costs for scaffolding materials  
Less costs for stucco splatter and downpipes  
Less costs for moulding  
($10,000)  
($1,352.82)  
($2,000)  
($1,000)  
[147] The result is that the Defendants will pay to the Claimant the sum of $2,287.18.  
In addition, the Claimant is entitled to its filing fee of $156 and the service fee of $25, a  
total of $2,468.18.  
_____________________________  
The Honourable Judge W. Lee  
Provincial Court of British Columbia  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission