VadeLab
AllowedCivil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims·

Unpaid Invoice Dispute Ruled in Contractor's favour by Civil Resolution Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, a contractor sued a business for an unpaid invoice for electrical work. The Civil Resolution Tribunal found the business must pay the full amount, plus interest and fees.

⚖️ Legal holding

A claimant is entitled to payment for work completed if the respondent does not dispute the work or the amount charged.

Topics

small claimsunpaid invoices

Provisions

Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 118Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 42Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 49

📚 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.

⚖️ View on the official court website ↗

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The applicant completed electrical work for the respondent as proven by the signed work order and GPS tracking records.
  • The respondent did not dispute the amount charged or the quality of the work performed.
  • National failed to provide evidence that the parties agreed disputes would be decided in Québec.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • National claimed to have supporting decisions for its argument without providing them or explaining their relevance.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal ordered the business to pay the contractor the full amount of the invoice, plus interest and CRT fees.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about an unpaid invoice for electrical work completed by the contractor.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the contractor because the business did not dispute the work or the amount charged.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act sections 118, 42, and 49 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The contractor argued that the business did not provide any evidence that the work was disputed or that the terms required arbitration in Quebec.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the contractor.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If you have completed work and the client does not dispute the work or the amount charged, you may be entitled to payment.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The contractor's signed work order, GPS tracking records, and the lack of evidence from the business mattered in the decision.

Official source: Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims (© Province of British Columbia). VadeLab reproduces no part of the decision text; the summary above is VadeLab's own material. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Unpaid Invoice Dispute Decided by Civil Resolution Tribunal | VadeLab