Decision on Unpaid Cleaning Invoices - Civil Resolution Tribunal
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant is entitled to payment for services rendered if the terms of the agreement are met.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The respondents agreed they owed two of the invoices for cleaning services.
- The applicant proved it provided cleaning services at the respondent's offices for three weekends.
- The tribunal found that an unsigned agreement reflected the terms of the parties' contract for cleaning services.
- The applicant was entitled to reimbursement for CRT fees.
- The applicant was entitled to reimbursement for reasonable dispute-related expenses, including a corporate search and process server costs.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant failed to prove that the respondents agreed to pay for employee attendance at a site orientation.
- The respondents did not provide evidence to support their claim that the applicant's cleaning was deficient.
- The respondents did not provide any documentary evidence to support their claims.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay $1,609.50 for unpaid invoices related to cleaning services, but dismissed the claim for a site orientation.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about unpaid invoices for cleaning services and a claim for payment for a site orientation.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the respondents owe $1,609.50 for unpaid invoices because the claimant proved the services were rendered. However, the claim for the site orientation was dismissed due to lack of proof.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, sections 118, 42, 48, and 39, and the Partnership Act, sections 7 and 12 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's proof of services rendered and the respondents' acknowledgment of owing for two invoices.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially for the person who brought the case, as the claimant was awarded payment for some invoices but not for the site orientation.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it is important to ensure that agreements are clear and that all services rendered are documented.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The invoices for cleaning services and the text messages confirming the termination of services mattered in the decision.