B.C. homeowner loses appeal of $20,120.17 renovation bill

A British Columbia homeowner has lost her appeal of a $20,120.17 renovation judgment after the Supreme Court found that credible oral testimony could support the unpaid balance despite inadequate written records on both sides.

In Rahmani v. MNG Builders Inc., 2026 BCSC 2030, released October 21, 2026, Justice E. Sigurdson dismissed Hoda Rahmani’s appeal from a Provincial Court decision concerning renovations to her condominium.

The ruling leaves the original October 2025 award in place. It does not award another $20,120.17. The respondent, Nima Rezaee Moghaddam, was also entitled to appeal costs at Scale B, but the reasons did not fix a dollar amount for those costs.

A payment dispute with limited paperwork

Rahmani engaged MNG Builders Inc. and Rezaee Moghaddam to renovate the condominium in 2021 and 2022. The work took longer than she wanted and did not meet her expectations. At the end of the project, payment was withheld, although the parties disagreed about how much remained owing.

Rezaee Moghaddam claimed an unpaid balance of $20,120.17. Rahmani’s position at trial was that she had paid what was owing and that the cost of correcting deficiencies should be deducted. The builder said he had received lists of problems after completing the work and had fixed the identified issues.

The Provincial Court awarded the full amount claimed for breach of contract on October 9, 2025. Its task was made harder by the lack of reliable records showing the payments and when they were made. The trial judge nevertheless found that she could resolve the dispute by assessing the parties’ oral evidence, including its credibility and reliability.

On appeal, Rahmani did not deny that funds had been withheld at the end of the renovation. She argued that the amount accepted by the trial judge had not been properly proved. She sought a new trial or a different damages amount, challenging trial fairness, credibility findings, the burden of proof and the treatment of alleged losses.

An appeal was not a fresh trial

The Supreme Court explained that a small-claims appeal can address questions of fact and law, but does not automatically become a new trial. Factual and credibility findings receive substantial deference. An appeal judge cannot overturn them merely because they would have viewed the evidence differently.

Sigurdson reviewed the trial transcript and found no basis to disturb the trial judge’s assessment. The trial judge had described the builder’s testimony as clear, consistent and supported by a good recollection of the work and payments. By contrast, she found Rahmani’s evidence about additional payments vague, inconsistent or improbable.

The appeal judge found no appearance of bias, use of stereotypes or other demonstrated error that justified interfering with those findings. The result turned on the trial evidence in this dispute, not on a general preference for contractors over homeowners.

Interruptions and phone messages did not make the trial unfair

Rahmani argued that she had been interrupted and denied the same opportunities to present evidence as the builder. One complaint concerned his references to WhatsApp messages, including messages in Farsi, while the trial judge was unwilling to review messages on her phone.

Sigurdson distinguished testimony about messages from introducing the messages themselves as documentary exhibits. The builder had been permitted to refer to WhatsApp messages while testifying, but had not introduced them as exhibits. Rahmani was not prevented from testifying about the contents of her own messages in the same way.

The transcript showed a difficult proceeding in which the participants sometimes spoke over one another and blurred the distinction between testimony, questioning and argument. Both sides had deficient documentation and limited familiarity with court procedure. The appeal judge concluded that the trial judge’s interventions were aimed at keeping the hearing coherent and fair, rather than preventing Rahmani from presenting her case.

The court also declined to admit proposed additional evidence on appeal. No affidavit or summary of that evidence had been provided, and no adequate basis had been shown for admitting fresh evidence. Overall, Rahmani had not demonstrated a reviewable trial-fairness error.

Poor records did not reverse the burden of proof

Rahmani maintained that the trial judge had effectively required her to disprove the builder’s claim instead of requiring him to prove it. The appeal court rejected that characterization.

The builder had to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there was an agreement, that the charges were consistent with it and that a discernible unpaid balance remained. Rahmani likewise had to prove the facts on which she relied to support additional payments or deductions for deficiencies.

The trial judge recognized that the documents alone were inadequate. But documents were not the only evidence available. She accepted credible testimony quantifying the amount owing and rejected Rahmani’s account of further undocumented cash payments. That was an assessment of evidence under the civil standard, not a reversal of the burden.

The court’s reasoning does not make good records unnecessary. It recognizes that a claim may still be proved through the admissible evidence as a whole when the written record is poor. Here, the trial judge found the builder’s account more likely than not to be correct.

Alleged defects did not justify withholding the balance

Rahmani also argued that missing window blinds should have reduced the amount payable. She characterized the trial record as establishing that the builder had removed them and failed to return them.

The appeal judge found that the evidence was disputed. The builder said he did not recall taking the blinds, and the trial judge had not made a factual finding that he had wrongfully removed or withheld them or caused a proven replacement cost. A question putting Rahmani’s allegation to the builder was not itself a finding that the allegation was true.

More broadly, the trial court had found no significant unresolved deficiencies or damage proved that justified withholding payment. That included the disputed blinds issue and alleged gas-line damage. Sigurdson found no palpable and overriding error in that conclusion.

The appeal was therefore dismissed. The existing renovation award stands, with appeal costs still to be quantified. The decision upholds the trial judge’s assessment of this evidence; it does not establish that every alleged defect was imaginary or that unsupported invoices must always be paid.