Case Name:

City Water International Inc. v. Jade Travel Ltd.

BetweenCity Water International Inc., Plaintiff, and

Jade Travel Ltd., Defendant

[2013] O.J. No. 6200

Court File No. SC-12-92209

Ontario Superior Court of JusticeSmall Claims Court - Richmond Hill, Ontario

R.A. Besunder Deputy J.

Heard: July 19, 2013.Oral judgment: July 19, 2013.

(16 paras.)

Counsel:

M. Riddell, For the Plaintiff.

K. Ismail, For the Defendant.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 R.A. BESUNDER DEPUTY J. (orally):-- Well, as a first matter, I want to thank both parties,both, number one, for their patience, because we started this whole exercise back in January, and ina world where people's attention spans are usually thirty seconds or less, I'm glad we allremembered what we were talking about six, seven months later. So I appreciate that. And Iappreciate the very helpful submissions today by both sides, both on the facts and on generalprinciples of law.

2 As I indicated, I was able to refer to my notes from the first hearing date, in advance of today,

Page 1

when we had heard the evidence of the parties, and I appreciate that the parties today gave me abrief summary of what I had heard back then, because it helps to have things put into a summaryfashion. Because even though I had reviewed my notes and it seemed very fresh, it's still nice tohave people direct you as to what the highlights were. It's like I'm not going to watch all sevengames of the World Series. Ten years after the fact, the highlight reel is good. It tells me who wonand who lost. Except in this case, I get to tell you who won and who lost. It's the ultimate sportsfan's dream.

3 I found the evidence from both sides generally to be credible. I didn't find that anyone wasexaggerating or trying to pull the wool over my eyes in this case, and that makes it a little moredifficult. Sometimes you get those people who come in here and think that I just crawled out fromunder a rock and can't tell up from down.

4 Depending on how much sleep a person has, that can sometimes be true, but the bottom line is,I found both sides to be sincere and credible.

5 And that makes me go to the documentation, because when in doubt, look at what people havesigned, what people have created, before they thought that there was going to be litigation. Becausethe one rule I've learned is that even when people come here and appear credible, they aren't always,because everyone has a self interest. That's just human nature. People tell the stories the way theybelieve them to be, and I've always been very naïve in the view that, if you can look at a documentthat's created when people don't think there's going to be a problem, it's probably a lot more reliablethan hearing people try to explain things away six months, a year, two years after the fact.

6 And the documentation that I had in front of me was of a very clear case of a contract existingbetween the parties, and a very clear renewal. And I accept the evidence of the plaintiff in thatrespect, that there was an ongoing relationship that the defendant agreed to, and agreed to renew.The terms and conditions of that relationship between the parties, I find is dictated by the rentalagreements with the various renewals that were signed.

7 One of the big issues was whether or not Jade Travel wanted the carbon dual system, orwhether it was just thrown at them, so to speak, without their knowledge. I find, on the basis of thevarious signatures, the numerous service calls, and the evidence of the ongoing discussions betweenthe parties about the equipment and the service and the inquiries made about the carbon dualsystem, I don't like using this phrase, but it's probably the most apt one I can use - it's a phraseemployed by a representative for the plaintiff - that, you know, the left hand didn't know what theright was doing at times.

8 I don't think that there was any intent to deceive or to create confusion, but this is the problemone sometimes encounters, where more than one person has authority to sign, or one person hasauthority to sign and another person makes inquiries. And the plaintiff, like any other serviceprovider, has a right to rely on the representations made to it, and the signatures it obtains onvarious documents.

Page 2

9 In the totality, I find that the evidence supports the plaintiff's position that the defendant isresponsible for the cost of the removal and refurbishment of the equipment; that that was done withthe knowledge and authority of the defendant. And I also agree with the submissions - I feel I'mbound by the law that goes to this issue, in terms of the assessment of damages under the contract -that the plaintiff is essentially entitled to performance of the contract in a monetary sense; thatthey're entitled to be put in the position that they would have been in had the contract been fulfilled.

10 It's unfortunate in an ongoing business relationship when things like this happen, and I'mheartened to hear that there is an ongoing relationship between City Water and Jade Travel; that theservice isn't all that bad that every contract is being opted out of.

11 I think, you know, I hate philosophizing, too, and people who hear me talk will say, well ifyou hate it so much, why do you do it. It's because sometimes it's necessary. Ninety-nine percent ofall disputes, other than things like car accidents, etcetera, where we're talking about negligence, butmost disputes that you see in this court come about from one sole cause, and that is poorcommunication.

12 Communication is a two-way street. It involves knowledge on both parties' sides as to whatthat party is doing. And you know, if you have three people in an office ordering supplies, you'regoing to get three times the number of paper clips that you're going to need, unless these people sitdown and talk and say, this is what's going on within the office. And one person will do this,another person will do that. And I genuinely believe that the situation at Jade Travel was that theyended up with three sets of paper clips instead of one, for lack of a better analogy.

13 And I don't think there was intent in that coming about, but unfortunately, people are allowedto rely upon representations made, signatures obtained on documents, and I think that the plaintiff isentitled to rely upon what it had obtained and what it learned in the course of its dealings.

14 So on that basis, I am prepared to give judgment to the plaintiff in accordance with thecontract and in accordance with the final invoice.

15 And my endorsement reads, "For oral reasons given, the plaintiff shall have judgment inaccordance with the final invoice of November 1st, 2012, being Exhibit 9, against the defendant, inthe amount of $2,236.04, plus pre-judgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate fromNovember 22nd, 2012, to date." And I use that date because the invoice states that the due date onthe invoice is November 22"d, so contractually, that's when they say you should have paid. Youdidn't, so interest should run from that date. I've also ordered costs to be - and we'll discuss costs -the amount, and on top of the costs and damages and interest, there would be post-judgment interestfrom today's date onward at the Courts of Justice Act rate.

16 So in that context, it's customary for me to turn to the winning party, the plaintiff, and ask anysubmissions on costs.

Page 3

**At this time, submissions were made re costs, duly noted but not typed**

Page 4

---- End of Request ----Download Request: Current Document: 1Time Of Request: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 18:02:26