Contractor seeking payment dinged for deficiencies and for locking out property owners

A contractor who contended he was owed $20,000 for his work on a Coquitlam property had his claim knocked down to $1,700 in a recent B.C. court case.

In 2022, Gen Hong Chen was hired for a six-week, $40,000 renovation job that included replacing the property’s roof, flooring, doors, exterior walls and interior baseboard, as well as adding some new cabinets and doing some painting.

Fan Zhang gave Chen a $20,000 cheque as a deposit.

However, once the work was finished, both Zhang and Chen offered different accounts of the state of the property.

Speaking in court, Chen said their inspection didn’t reveal any problems. However, Chen confirmed that a later email referred to his renovation work as: “not meeting Ms. Zhang’s personal standards,” according to the judgment.

Problems escalated when Chen asked to be paid.

After telling Zhang, “We need to settle the bill,” she initially talked with him about replacing the fireplace before later presenting Chen with a hat as a gift, he told the court.

A week later, Zhang told Chen he had to replace the fireplace or he wouldn’t be paid, according to Chen.

Chen told Zhang he would hire a lawyer if she didn’t pay him.

To force payment, Chen eventually locked the property and kept the key.

Speaking in court, Zhang said she had: “dissatisfaction in my heart,” regarding the renovations.

Zhang and her son, the property’s registered owner Yun Fei Xiao, filed a counterclaim asking for the return of the $20,000 deposit as well as expenses.

Credibility

Judge Lee recounted challenges with the credibility of both Chen and Zhang.

On several occasions, Chen and Zhang didn’t respond to questions.

Some of Zhang’s evidence “was exaggerated or defied common sense,” Lee wrote.

Following Chen’s renovations, Zhang said the home was “not liveable,” Lee noted. However, with only minor electrical repairs the home was rented out, Lee noted.

Deficiencies

A series of photographs showed several deficiencies, ranging from water pooling on the roof to inadequate paint coverage, watermarks on the ceiling, paint drops on the floor, a door that wasn’t replaced and rotted wood on exterior walls.

“Expert evidence is not required for me to find that water should not pool on a newly constructed roof,” Lee wrote.

Those deficiencies constitute a breach of the renovation contract, Lee concluded.

While Chen contended he should have been able to make repairs, Lee noted that a contractor can lose that right when there’s a reasonable basis for a property owner to lose faith in the ability of their contractor.

“The defendants have lost faith in the ability of Mr. Chen to carry out the repairs and I find this was reasonable in the circumstances,” Lee wrote.

Chen completed about 75 percent of the work. If there weren’t any deficiencies, he’d be entitled to a payment of $10,000, Lee wrote.

“There were of course deficiencies,” Lee added.

Based on the judge’s “rough estimate,” it will cost Zhang and Xiao $8,000 to fix those deficiencies.

Locking the home and keeping the key was also improper, Lee determined.

The judge ordered Chen to reimburse Zhang and Xiao for the $300 they paid a locksmith to get back into the property.

After deducting the cost of the repairs and hiring the locksmith, the judge ordered the defendants to pay Chen $1,700.