Strohschein v. Alford, [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.052

• Judge: Shriar, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 02, 2015
• Citations: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.052;2015 ABPC 243

Strohschein v. Alford, [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.052

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.052

Ivan Strohschein (plaintiff) v. Barry Alford (defendant)

(15016-00053; 2015 ABPC 243)

Indexed As: Strohschein v. Alford

Alberta Provincial Court

Shriar, P.C.J.

November 18, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff claimed $6,229.10 plus costs and interest from the defendant (Alford) for plumbing and heating services allegedly completed "by December 13, 2013" according to the claim document, filed May 2015. Alford denied that any services were ever rendered by the plaintiff to him personally. Rather, Alford alleged that any such services were provided by the plaintiff to a corporation known as Interlock Solutions Ltd. ("Interlock"), admittedly owned and controlled by Alford. Alford also alleged that services provided by the plaintiff to Interlock were completed by March 16, 2011, and any claim by the plaintiff was barred by s. 3 of the Limitations Act.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the claim. The plaintiff could not unilaterally delay the start of the limitation simply by delaying the preparation of an invoice. The limitation period to sue for payment of the work completed by the plaintiff in March 2012 started to run at a reasonable time after that work was completed. Although the reasonable time could not be specified with certainty, it expired well before May 2015, the date the claim was filed. Further, any claim by the plaintiff ought to have been brought against Interlock, not Alford personally. Throughout their history of business dealings, apart from the present plumbing and heating contract, the plaintiff only ever billed and was only ever paid by Interlock; he never billed nor was he ever paid by Alford personally. The plaintiff's two invoices were made out to Interlock and payment was made on the first invoice via three cheques, all from Interlock. Alford explained that he thought he had to choose to name one or the other as a defendant and he chose Alford because the work was done on a house that Alford was going to live in personally. The court was not convinced that was a sufficient basis to name Alford alone as a defendant. This was not a builders' lien claim. Given the expiry of the limitation period, it was not appropriate to amend the claim to add or substitute Interlock as a defendant.

Building Contracts - Topic 3041

Actions against the owner - For breach of contract - General - See paragraphs 37 to 41.

Contracts - Topic 521

Parties - Who constitutes a party - General - See paragraphs 37 to 41.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2023

Actions in contract - Actions for breach of contract - When time commences to run - See paragraphs 13 to 36.

Practice - Topic 605

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - General principles - Application of limitation periods - See paragraph 41.

Counsel:

The plaintiff was self-represented;

Colin Kloot, for the defendant.

This case was heard on October 2, 2015, by Shriar, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 18, 2015.