B.C. business owner gets $3K refund for architectural plans that weren't done by an architect

This undated image shows architectural drawings. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. company has been ordered to refund a business owner who paid nearly $3,000 for architectural design services that were not provided by an architect.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled on the dispute Monday, noting that architecture is a regulated profession in British Columbia and companies and individuals that are not certified or registered are not allowed to use certain terms to describe the services offered.

"These unacceptable terms include 'Architectural Design(er),' 'Architectural Drawings,' 'Architectural Plans,' 'Architectural Design, and 'Architectural Services,'" tribunal member Sarah Orr wrote.

In 2022, Arvin Dahri was opening a café in Langley and asked Sleek Drafting & Design Ltd. for a quote to perform certain services in order to get the permit required.

The quote provided was for "Architectural Design Service for Coffee Shop," the tribunal decision says.

"The scope of work included providing a site plan, floor plans, cross section, electrical plan, reflected ceiling plan, and cross-section for architectural plans. It also included promptly providing revisions required by the municipality or the Fraser Health Authority, and coordination with all other consultants to complete the project."

Dahri paid an invoice for $2,992.50 after receiving six drawings but the Township of Langley asked for "signed and sealed architectural drawings" after he submitted the ones provided.

For his part, Dahri told the tribunal he would not have hired the company or paid the invoice if he did not believe that the company's principal, Gurpreet Khuman, was a certified architect.

"It is undisputed that Mr. Khuman is not an architect and was not qualified to complete architectural drawings. It is also undisputed that without these completed documents, Mr. Bahri could not get a permit from the Township of Langley to build and open his coffee shop," Orr wrote, adding that Bahri subsequently hired someone else to complete the work.

The company argued that it did not explicitly say Khuman was an architect and did not say the designs would be signed and sealed.

The tribunal had to decide whether the company and Khuman "negligently misrepresented" the services it was able to provide by making "a statement of fact that is untrue, inaccurate, or misleading." In addition, Bahri would also need to prove – on a balance of probabilities – he relied on that misrepresentation "to his detriment" when he hired the company.

The tribunal found that was the case given that Bahri believed Khuman was an architect and had to hire someone else to complete the work he thought he had contracted the company to perform.

The company argued that the work that was done had value and that it was entitled to some compensation. The tribunal disagreed and ordered a full refund.

Khuman, in an email to CTV News, said he is filing a counter-claim "on the basis that (Bahri) used my intellectual property to obtain his building permit for his coffee shop."