Dealing With Quality Renovations

Financial Dealings Summary with Contractor

$1,900 total paid before meaningful completion:
- $1,000 deposit.
- Additional $900 post-demolition request.
Contractor acknowledged receiving these amounts but delayed issuing receipts, despite repeated promises. Eventually submitted an invoice for $1900.

Posts poured on Aug 6 were later found to be misaligned (confirmed with string line and photos).
Contractor removed materials (posts and chain link) from property without consent, later denying it, then admitting it, then denying again.
Work repeatedly delayed despite at least 10 promised start/completion dates.
Contractor failed to carry out Call Before You Dig obligations, pushing responsibility onto the homeowner.

Aug 21: After Shawn’s formal letter, contractor said he would agree to Option 1 (partial refund) but rejected the $1,400 refund request, claiming he had done “more than $500 worth of work.”
Aug 22: Contractor floated a figure of $1,200 refund.
Aug 22 (later): Shawn countered with $1,400 refund and then a $1300 midpoint compromise.
Contractor agreed in principle to a refund but attached conditions, such as Shawn agreeing not to post reviews.
Shawn followed with conditions that payment was dependent on future contractor validating or denying the “work” that “Quality Reno” did . Quality Reno would be responsible for a greater amount if posts were not suitable.

Shawn outlined numerous safe and reliable payment methods. Contractor promised to send a cheque and resisted Interac transfer or other secure options (even though Shawn originally paid through Interac Bank payment meeting all time frames.)
Contractor surprisingly claimed he was out of the country until Sept 17, so cheque would have to be mailed by his “accounting firm.”
Shawn asked for registered mail with tracking, which the contractor agreed to but never provided proof for.
Contractor was offered a 24 hour period to offer proof of registered mail. Failed to produce it.
By Aug 30, the cheque still had not arrived despite repeated promises (“Hi it’s a long weekend I promise you will get payed”).
Throughout, contractor shifted stories (sometimes saying the cheque was sent, sometimes blaming delays, sometimes refusing further communication).

Refund Amount: Mischaracterized his stance by implying “at least $500 worth of work” justified reducing refund.
Payment Method: Refused reimbursement method that would have been consistent of what he requested from Shawn, then reneged and insisted on cheque only.
Delivery of Funds: Promised multiple times to send or have mailed by accountant, but never provided verification or completed payment.
Materials: Gave conflicting statements about taking chain link and posts — denied, admitted, denied again.
Timelines: Consistently promised specific dates for completion or refund, then failed to follow through.
No refund as of September 1 2025.