A project that began as a business agreement among friends then descended into an argument over money has been settled in small claims court.

The case revolved around the restoration and additions done to Bombay Peggy's pub in Dawson City.

The Gold Rush-era brothel was purchased by Kim Bouzane and Wendy Cairns in 1998. The two women planned to move the structure to where it now stands at Second and Princess and reopen it as a boutique pub and hotel.

Both women had common-law husbands who were experienced contractors and worked on the project from the beginning.

Bouzane's partner, Peter Maxwell, was hired as the general contractor, while Cairns' partner, Troy Suzuki, began doing the carpentry work.

But where Maxwell had a formal work agreement with the two women, Suzuki did not

Instead, he was given an open bar and hotel-room tab on the understanding he would be paid when the business was up and running.

By the spring of 1999, the project was behind schedule and over budget.

Maxwell was let go. Suzuki agreed to take over many of his responsibilities, including supervising subcontractors and ensuring all work was properly completed; he did this in addition to the specialty carpentry work he was doing on the establishment's elaborate bar.

The work was finished successfully and Bombay Peggy's opened in December. It would be almost seven years before Suzuki would see any money for the work he did on the building.

From the time work commenced until early 2000, "there were no clear discussions or agreements made with respect to how, if at all, Mr. Suzuki was to be compensated for his work on the project," Chief Judge Karen Ruddy found when the small claims case launched by Suzuki came before her this past winter.

It was "an issue which became a significant bone of contention contributing to the ultimate dissolution of the business relationship between Ms. Cairns and Ms. Bouzane."

Suzuki wanted to be paid, and in the spring of 2000 had given Bouzane a handwritten run-down of the hours he had worked and the payment he expected.

"(Suzuki) was clear in his evidence that this was not intended as an invoice, but rather to make a point to Ms. Bouzane about the value of his contribution," Ruddy wrote in her decision, released last week.

Cairns' and Bouzane's partnership finally ended in November 2006, when Cairns bought out Bouzane to become the sole owner of Bombay Peggy's.

A month before signing the sale agreement, the women gave Suzuki a cheque for $10,000 from their incorporated business account. After subtracting his bar/hotel tab of $5,700, $49,800 was left remaining on the amount Suzuki said he was owed.

Once the sale was complete, Cairns paid Suzuki - now her ex-partner - half that with a cheque for $24,900 and a $900 bar tab.

In November of 2007, Suzuki filed his small claims case against Bouzane, who still had not paid her share of the debt.

Once in court, Bouzane's lawyer argued that Suzuki's claim was too late, having come more than six years after the work was completed.

But because he was paid a portion of the amount owed to him - the $10,000 - in 2006, the judge ruled the six-year clock actually began ticking after that payment.

Bouzane's side also argued that Suzuki never had an agreement with Bouzane.

She took the stand to deny she had any contract, verbal or otherwise with Suzuki, and said any work he did was voluntary.

Even if he deserved payment, she said, the amount he billed for was too high, both in the number of hours he worked, and the hourly wage he charged.

Cairns, on the other hand, said both she and her business partner knew full well that Suzuki expected to be paid and even acknowledged that fact in several documents signed during Cairn's takeover of the pub.

"Of all the witnesses who testified with respect to their involvement in the Bombay Peggy's project, Ms. Cairns was by far the most credible. She testified in a clear and straightforward manner and her evidence was fair and balanced with good recall," Ruddy wrote.

"In contrast, I had several concerns with respect to Ms. Bouzane's testimony. It was clear from her evidence that she simply does not want to pay Mr. Suzuki."

She went on to call specifics of Bouzane's evidence "extremely suspect," and "contradictory."

Furthermore, she said, Cairns was in the best position to assess how much work Suzuki had done because she was actually on the site, while Bouzane was still working at her job with the local first nation government.

As for how much the work he did was worth, the court heard testimony from another contractor who did not work on the job but did an assessment of it once the business was open.

Ron Bramadat estimated the work at $80,500, $20,000 higher than the amount Suzuki charged.

At the end of the day, Ruddy ordered Bouzane to pay Suzuki $24,900 (plus interest calculated since 2006) and his legal costs.