Vernon contractor Aslan Electrical, Plumbing, Gasfitting, Refrigeration and Sheetmetal Services, billed a customer $778 for a site visit meant to produce a quote for a propane fridge, then took her to the online small claims court when she refused to pay. The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding no binding contract existed and that the customer reasonably expected a free site visit, since no evidence showed she was told of any charge. A second decision issued the same day went the contractor’s way, showing that signed work orders and clearly stated charges matter here.
A request for a propane fridge quote at a summer cabin ended with a surprise $778 invoice
According to iNFOnews, Melanie Moore asked the company for a quote to install a propane fridge at her summer cabin. A technician visited and some time later phoned her with a price. Moore found it was more than she had budgeted for and decided not to go ahead.The company later sent her a bill. It covered five and a half hours of labour and $71 for driving 75 kilometres, plus tax and parts. Moore told the tribunal she had understood the visit was only to prepare an estimate and did not expect to be charged for it. She was also confused about the labour, because the technician had been at her property for less than an hour.Before any legal action, Moore offered to pay for one hour of the technician’s time to settle the matter in good faith. The company turned that offer down and took her to the tribunal instead.
The contractor said she agreed to the job on the phone, but the call recordings told another story
Aslan argued that Moore agreed to hire it for the installation while speaking to its dispatcher, then cancelled once she heard the price. It said it should still be paid for the time and expenses it put into the job. The case turned on whether a written or verbal contract existed, either for the installation or for the quote itself.The company submitted two audio recordings of calls between Moore and its dispatcher. In them, Moore asks for a price, and the dispatcher says they have no idea, because invoicing is not their area. They then discuss the cabin’s location and arrange a visit. The tribunal ruled that no contract was formed during the phone call.
The tribunal found Moore reasonably expected a free visit and could decline the work over price
Because the dispatcher could not discuss price and instead sent a technician, the tribunal said Moore reasonably believed the cost would be settled on site, and that she could refuse the work if she disagreed with the quote. Moore said she had made clear she wanted to know the cost before committing. Evidence backed this up: the technician’s own note on the file described the aim as producing a rough estimate.Aslan then argued that it had a call-out charge, billed from the moment the technician left the shop until the return. The tribunal found no evidence the company had told Moore this. It said it was reasonable for her to assume a technician was being sent to look at a possible job free of charge, and it dismissed Aslan’s claim in full.
Before the ruling, the contractor had been involved in 45 tribunal cases in five years
The company was already a familiar name at the tribunal. In the first weeks of 2025 alone, it had taken six clients to the online small claims court. Over the previous five years, it had been involved in 45 tribunal cases and more than 60 cases in the British Columbia Provincial Small Claims Court.
A separate ruling the same day ordered another customer to pay for diagnosing a leaking water pipe
Not every dispute went against the company. In a separate decision issued on 20 February, 2025, Aslan sued customer Judy Knott over a $527 unpaid bill. The company first visited her home in 2021, fixed her air conditioner and billed $233.A year later, it returned twice to assess a leaking water pipe outside her property and recommended replacing 12 feet of pipe. Knott declined the work, and the company billed two hours at $294. She told the tribunal she had been under the impression there would be no charge, or a very small one, since the company had not done anything for her.The tribunal ruled that Aslan had been clear about the charge for diagnosing the problem and that Knott had signed the work order. It ordered her to pay $752, covering the two unpaid bills plus fees and interest.
