Provincial judge flushes Coquitlam man’s civil suit against plumbing contractor down the tubes

A Coquitlam homeowner had his civil suit against a plumbing contractor go down the tubes in provincial court on Aug. 8.

Ronald Hartley was seeking damages against 0869711 B.C. Ltd, also known as Mr. Swirl The Friendly Plumber, for causing damage to an underground sprinkler system while performing work to prevent sewer backups on the property two years ago.

Justice Wilson Lee, however, said that he could not “identify any legal basis” for the claim, as Hartley was not the owner of the property when the work was being carried out.

Hartley’s mother, Louise Hartley, was the registered owner of the Guiltner St. property when Mr. Swirl was contracted in the fall of 2022. At the time, Hartley and his mother were in a dispute over its ownership, which was eventually settled in 2023 with title being transferred into Hartley’s name.

During the course of Mr. Swirl’s work, which included digging a trench with the assistance of a hydro truck, an employee caused damage to the underground sprinkler system, including burying sprinkler lines.

The company argued that Louise told them that there was no need to make repairs, and opposed Hartley’s claim on the basis that contract was signed by a different owner.

An $8,700 estimate was provided to the court, which had Louise and another family member’s name on the contract.

There was disagreement about whether the sprinkler system was even functioning at the time of the work.

While Hartley provided photographic evidence to show it was working in 2019, one of his brothers testified that the system had not worked for three to four years, and a second brother testified that Louise would water the front yard using a garden hose. Louise did not testify in court.

Photos submitted into evidence from the time of the work showed a brown lawn, which confirmed to the judge that even if the system was working, it was not being used.

Although Mr. Swirl asserted it was told fixing damage to the sprinkler system was not required, the provincial judge was not convinced an email from Louise confirmed this claim.

Regardless, Justice Lee said that Hartley’s claim could not establish any breach of contract, negligence or intentional damage.

He said Hartley never had a contract with the company, and while contractors can be held liable for negligence if deficiencies in the work could lead to personal injury, there is no evidence a damaged sprinkler system could create such a risk.

The company owed no duty of care to the subsequent purchaser, who had no interest in the property at time of the contract, Justice Lee said, adding Louise did not assign her right to any potential claim against the company to Hartley.

“I find that the relationship between Robert Hartley and the Defendant did not have sufficient proximity such that the Defendant should owe a duty of care to Robert Hartley.”

Hartley was ordered to reimburse the $50 court fee to the company.