Executive Summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• CHC Construction Ltd. contracted with Terry Zi Chen He to renovate a strata unit in Richmond for $25,000 plus GST, but disputes arose over payment demands, scope of extras, and quality of work.

• The plaintiff's representative, Mr. Wei, was found to lack credibility due to evasive and argumentative testimony that was inconsistent with WeChat messages exchanged between the parties.

• Progress payment conditions under the fixed-price contract were never met, as demolition was incomplete, bathroom tiles were not installed, and painting and floors were never finished.

• Photographic evidence corroborated the defendant's claims that the plaintiff's work was of very poor quality, including failure to remove subfloor glue, defective wall repairs, and substandard painting.

• Agreed-upon extras between the parties totalled $7,200 plus GST, not the $8,500 claimed by the plaintiff nor the $5,700 acknowledged by the defendant.

• The plaintiff wrongfully repudiated the contract on April 24, 2023, by refusing to continue work unless an improper payment demand was satisfied, leading the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and award the defendant $9,384.37 in damages on counterclaim.

The renovation contract and its terms

In February 2023, CHC Construction Ltd., a construction company represented by its director and officer Dawei Wei, entered into a contract with Terry Zi Chen He (Mr. Chen) to perform a substantial renovation of Mr. Chen's strata unit at 1108-7500 Granville Street, Richmond, British Columbia. The contract, dated February 22, 2023 and signed by the plaintiff on February 24, 2023, was a fixed-price agreement set at $25,000 plus GST, with a project duration of 30 business days. The quality standard specified was the BC Building Code. The scope of work encompassed 13 items, including demolition, ceiling work, wall repairs, whole-house painting, stone plastic floor installation, bathroom renovations, electrical work, and in-floor heating for the kitchen and bathroom.

Payments under the contract were structured as four progress payments tied to specific milestones: $5,000 plus GST before signing and entering the venue; $8,000 plus GST after demolition was completed and garbage removed; $8,000 plus GST after completion of water and electricity, partition walls, and bathroom tiles; and $4,000 plus GST after completion of painting and the floors. This milestone-based payment structure became a central point of contention in the dispute.

Commencement of work and emerging disputes

Work under the contract did not begin until March 12, 2023, when Mr. Wei received the apartment key. The delay was attributable to the need for Strata Council approval, which required proof of the plaintiff's insurance — documentation that Mr. Wei did not provide until March 4, 2023. The court determined that the 30-business-day period began on March 12, meaning the contractual deadline for completion was April 21, 2023. During the period from March 12 to mid-April 2023, the scope of work changed as the parties discussed various extras and modifications. The plaintiff claimed that Mr. Chen had agreed to approximately $8,500 in extras, while Mr. Chen acknowledged only $5,700. Crucially, the parties never discussed or agreed to any change in the payment schedule or an extension of the 30-day completion deadline.

Evidence from WeChat messages revealed that for two full weeks after receiving the key, from March 12 to and including March 28, the plaintiff performed no work at all at the apartment. On March 21, Mr. Chen inquired about the demolition progress and was told work had not yet started. By March 29, when Mr. Chen visited the unit, demolition was only just beginning. Meanwhile, Mr. Chen had promptly selected flooring, tiles, and paint colours between March 9 and 15, undermining the plaintiff's suggestion that the defendant caused the delay.

The payment dispute and contract termination

On April 14, 2023, the plaintiff provided a "Phase 1 Statement" claiming $22,660 in completed work including extras, acknowledging $10,000 in payments received and asserting a balance of $12,660. Mr. Chen disputed several of the extras and indicated he would only pay upon completion of the project. On April 22, 2023, the plaintiff delivered a "Completed Project Statement" claiming $21,800 in completed work, acknowledging $15,000 paid and requesting $6,880 plus tax — a figure notably lower than the value stated in the earlier Phase 1 Statement, an inconsistency the court found significant. In a later message the same day, the plaintiff also threatened to suspend work, alleging the defendant had failed to provide materials.

The conflict reached its peak on April 24, 2023, when Mr. Wei and Mr. Chen met at the apartment. Mr. Chen testified that he inspected the work, found it incomplete and of poor quality, and asked Mr. Wei to finish and correct the work before payment. Mr. Wei refused to do any further work unless paid. As a result, Mr. Chen asked for the apartment key back; when Mr. Wei refused, Mr. Chen called the police. The police directed Mr. Wei to remove his belongings and return the key. The court accepted Mr. Chen's version of events and found that the plaintiff's refusal to continue working constituted a wrongful repudiation and breach of the contract, which Mr. Chen was entitled to accept, thereby bringing the contract to an end.

Quality of work and photographic evidence

Photographic evidence presented by Mr. Chen proved significant. As of April 24, 2023, the plaintiff had not installed flooring, tiles, in-floor heating, or baseboards, all of which were part of the contracted scope. The photographs showed that hardened glue on the concrete subfloor had not been fully removed, the subfloor had unrepaired holes and depressions, wall repairs were poorly done, painting was of very poor quality, and electrical work was incomplete. The court found that the plaintiff breached an implied term that work must be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, a principle established in British Columbia construction law.

Assessment of extras and credibility

The court carefully assessed each disputed extra item. While Mr. Chen acknowledged agreeing to $5,700 in extras (door delivery, hall floor tiles removal, removal of old kitchen wall, installation of new kitchen wall, and doors), the court found that additional items were also agreed-upon extras based on the documentary evidence. These included a 30-amp socket and wiring ($800), moving/adding three switches ($300), a kitchen socket ($100), and water valves ($300), bringing the total agreed extras to $7,200 plus GST. Items such as a spotlight, switches and panels, and wiring and installation of pot lights in the hall were rejected as extras because they were not identifiable in any of the extras statements or in the WeChat messages. Geothermal wiring was found to already be included in the original contract as part of the in-floor heating provision.

The court's assessment was shaped substantially by credibility findings. Mr. Wei was found to be neither credible nor reliable, having been evasive and extremely argumentative during cross-examination, rarely answering questions directly, and offering testimony inconsistent with the WeChat messages on important points. By contrast, Mr. Chen was found to have answered questions clearly and concisely. Where the two witnesses diverged, the court preferred Mr. Chen's evidence.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed CHC Construction Ltd.'s claim in its entirety and allowed the defendant's counterclaim. Justice Giaschi determined that the plaintiff breached the contract in three respects: by wrongfully demanding payment not owed under the progress payment schedule, by refusing to complete the contract unless the wrongfully requested payment was made, and by failing to perform work in a good and workmanlike manner within the required 30 business days. The defendant, Mr. Chen, was not found to have breached the contract. The allegation that the plaintiff intentionally damaged the apartment door was not proven, as the court had no direct evidence of who damaged the door and was not prepared to infer that it was Mr. Wei. In calculating damages, the court determined that had the contract and agreed extras been properly completed, Mr. Chen would have owed $32,200 plus GST. Instead, his total actual cost — including the $15,000 paid to the plaintiff and $26,137.50 paid to replacement contractors — reached $41,137.50. The difference of $8,937.50 plus GST yielded damages of $9,384.37 awarded in favour of the defendant, Mr. Chen. The court additionally ordered cancellation and discharge of the builder's lien the plaintiff had registered against the property, court order interest from August 28, 2023, and costs to the defendant assessed under Scale A.