A sa国际传媒 homeowner who paid $771,000 for renovations that were never completed should get most of her money back, a BC Supreme Court judge has ruled.
In a decision issued this month in Vernon, Justice Warren Milman sided with Manhattan Drive homeowner Beverly Wanklyn in her suit against Rene Bertrand and Elite Lifestyle Services.
The verdict was posted on the courtsa国际传媒 website Dec. 20.
鈥淭his action arises from a series of contracts by which the plaintiff, Beverly Jill Wanklyn, hired the defendants to renovate her house. After paying them a total of $771,207.96 and waiting over a year and a half for the work to be done, she finally lost faith in them and hired a different contractor to complete the job,鈥 the judge wrote in his decision.
Some early work was completed so Milman awarded Wanklyn $732,000, plus interest and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Wanklyn first met Bertrand around January 2017, according to Milmansa国际传媒 summary of events.
鈥淎t the time, Ms. Wanklyn owned her home, a house located at 860聽Manhattan Drive on the lakefront in sa国际传媒. It was an older house, built in 1924, and was poorly insulated. Bertrand resided at a nearby property.鈥
Wanklyn hired him for home cleaning. Impressed with his work, she agreed to let Bertrand build a guest suite she could rent out.
鈥淎fter Mr. Bertrand successfully completed the guest suite, they discussed a more comprehensive renovation of the rest of the house,鈥 the judge wrote. 鈥淢s. Wanklyn was planning to depart for a European vacation 鈥 Mr.聽Bertrand told her that he could do the work and have it essentially completed while she was away.
Wanklyn paid $327,000 for the work, but when she arrived home 鈥渟he was shocked to find that the house had been gutted and progress halted. Her belongings remained in storage offsite.
鈥淢s. Wanklyn asked for her money back. Mr. Bertrand refused to provide a refund, explaining that her money had already been spent purchasing the materials needed for the renovation. This appears to have been untrue,鈥 one of many times the judge said Bertrand lied to his client.
鈥淎s the project languished during the rest of the summer, Mr. Bertrand told Ms. Wanklyn, falsely, that he was awaiting municipal permits. In September 2017, he told her that the house contained asbestos and that the work could not proceed until the problem was addressed.
鈥淚n December 2017, the pipes froze because they had been left exposed without insulation.
鈥淏etween January and April 2018, Mr. Bertrand was rarely on site. He told Ms.聽Wanklyn that he was waiting for a structural engineer to prepare plans so that construction could proceed.
鈥淚n April 2018, he told her (falsely), that the city had concluded that the house was structurally unsound and now had to be torn down.
鈥淥n May 2, 2018, Mr. Bertrand presented Ms. Wanklyn with yet another quote to complete the renovation, this one for $1,247,400, in addition to the amounts she had already paid 鈥 Her bank refused to lend her any more than $223,700 until the work was completed.
鈥淚n early August 2018, Ms. Wanklyn, now justifiably suspicious about everything Mr. Bertrand had been telling her, demanded to see the defendants鈥 receipts for the work done to that point. They refused to provide them.鈥
On Aug. 18, Wanklyn again demanded a refund.
鈥淥n August 31, 2018, Ms. Wanklyn formally terminated her contract with the defendants. She subsequently hired a different contractor to complete the renovation at a cost of $995,025.41,鈥 the judge wrote.
Milman accepted almost all of Wanklynsa国际传媒 version of events.
鈥淭he defendants did not formally respond to the application, although the individual defendant, Rene Bertrand, appeared at the hearing to ask for an adjournment, which I refused, he wrote.
鈥淢s. Wanklynsa国际传媒 factual assertions are, to a large extent, confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Bertrand on discovery.鈥
鈥淚 am satisfied that the evidence before me establishes the defendants鈥 liability for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.鈥
The judge said he believed Bertrand started the project with good intentions.
鈥淚 am not persuaded that the defendants set out from the beginning to convert Ms. Wanklynsa国际传媒 payments without ever intending to complete the project. Rather, it appears that they intended to do the work eventually, but were incapable of properly managing the project or seeing it through to completion.鈥
