Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centered on whether an enforceable contract existed between a homeowner and a contractor for siding installation and related construction work.
   
• Multiple estimates, all dated the same day yet containing different terms and totals, complicated the court's analysis of contract formation.
   
• Testimony revealed conflicting characterizations of the arrangement, with the contractor alternating between describing it as cost-plus and fixed-price.
   
• A late amendment adding an unjust enrichment claim raised significant limitation period concerns under the Limitation Act.
   
• Neither party produced quantity survey evidence to establish the value of completed or incomplete work.
   
• Ultimately, the court dismissed both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim for lack of an enforceable agreement.
   

Facts of the case

Guardian Eavestrough Ltd. sued Parvinder Singh Pabla for unpaid invoices related to siding installation and other construction services, and had registered a builder's lien to secure the claim. Pabla, the homeowner, counterclaimed for damages arising from allegedly inadequate, delayed, and incomplete work, as well as improper filing of the lien. The parties had a prior positive working relationship, as Pabla, who works in real estate, had previously engaged Guardian Eavestrough for work on other homes. Mr. Taylor, the owner and operating mind of Guardian Eavestrough, and Pabla met in spring 2021 to discuss the project, with discussions about scope continuing over several months. Up to three estimates were prepared, all dated September 2, 2021, despite containing different terms: the first totalled $44,920.46, the second $45,392.96, and the third $45,098.13 (the "December 2021 Estimate"). Only the third estimate was actually delivered to Pabla, and this occurred in early December 2021 despite its September date. No written contract was ever created. Work began after early December 2021 and, according to the plaintiff, was completed by August 2022, though the plaintiff maintained it had not been fully paid. Hundreds of texts and emails passed between the parties from mid-2021 through mid-to-late 2022, many referencing in-person or phone discussions about cost and scope changes. The plaintiff claimed the parties eventually agreed to an amended total of $58,500, of which $50,000 was paid, and sued for the remaining $7,619.63. Pabla acknowledged engaging the plaintiff based on the December-delivered estimate but maintained it represented a fixed-price contract, denying any binding subsequent amendments. The plaintiff filed its original Notice of Civil Claim in September 2022 and, in June 2025, filed an Amended Notice of Civil Claim adding a new unjust enrichment claim for $14,914.43. Because this amendment was filed after the trial date had been set and without leave or consent, it breached Rule 6-1(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. A consent order was subsequently filed in December 2025 that purported to validate the amendment; Pabla, self-represented at the time, testified he signed it feeling he had little choice and did not fully understand its significance.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on principles of contract formation rather than a specific written policy, since no written contract governed the relationship. The court applied the objective "meeting of the minds" test, drawing on authorities including Le Soleil Hotel & Suites Ltd. v. Le Soleil Management Inc., 2009 BCSC 1303, which requires parties to express an outward intention to be bound on reasonably certain terms, and Sojka v. Sojka, 2023 BCCA 446, which sets out the requirements for establishing an oral contract. The court also considered whether a contractual quantum meruit claim could apply where parties agree work is to be paid for but fail to fix remuneration, per Infinity Steel Inc. v. B & C Steel Erectors Inc., 2011 BCCA 215. On the limitation issue, the court applied the Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 13, particularly section 6(1), which bars a claim from being commenced more than two years after discovery, and section 22, which addresses related claims. The test for whether an amendment raises a new cause of action requiring leave, discussed in Manterra Technologies Inc. v. Verathon Medical (Canada) ULC, 2022 BCSC 98, and the factors governing leave to amend from Teal Cedar Products (1977) Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. and Letvad v. Fenwick, 2000 BCCA 630, were also central to the analysis.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that no written contract existed and that the estimate delivered to Pabla lacked meaningful particulars regarding timing or scope. Extensive text and email exchanges showed the parties disagreed on price and performance and were proceeding on an ad hoc basis, with terms adjusted regularly. Mr. Taylor gave inconsistent testimony, describing the arrangement at different points as both cost-plus and fixed-price with modifications, and could not identify what percentage or margin constituted the "plus" component. Pabla, for his part, insisted the December 2021 Estimate was a fixed-price contract while simultaneously raising complaints about matters not addressed in that estimate. The parties also disagreed entirely over whether an alleged $8,000 payment was meant to resolve outstanding disputes. Unlike in Greenhill Properties (1977) Ltd. v. Sandcastle Recreation Centre Ltd., the invoices here did not clearly evidence the contract's terms. On this basis, the court concluded there was no distinct meeting of the minds on essential terms — scope, timetable, and remuneration — and therefore no enforceable contract, written or oral. Turning to the unjust enrichment amendment, the court found the nearly three-year delay in raising this new claim was unexplained beyond a vague reference to the discovery process, and that there was potential prejudice to Pabla given that his original position was grounded solely in contract, with no reference to equitable claims. The court held the amendment was a nullity without leave, and declined to grant leave given the extent of the delay and the potential prejudice. The court further indicated that, even if leave had been granted, it would have permitted Pabla to raise limitation and laches defences, which it found would succeed on the evidence.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant established, on a balance of probabilities, that an enforceable contract existed between them. It found the June 2025 amendment adding the unjust enrichment claim was improperly filed beyond the applicable two-year limitation period and constituted a nullity, and declined to grant leave to amend. As a result, the court dismissed both Guardian Eavestrough's claims and Pabla's counterclaim in their entirety, with each party bearing its own costs. No monetary amount was awarded to either party.