Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply in the context of an Order to Pay for cleaning expenses?

The respondent invokes the doctrine of promissory estoppel to resist repayment, arguing that the claimant effectively waived her entitlement to the expenses by signing the Order to Pay in a form that did not include a deduction for cleaning expenses. I do not agree that this doctrine has any application in the present circumstances. There is no evidence of promise or assurance by the claimant that was intended to affect the legal relations between the parties, and no evidence of detrimental reliance by the respondent: Fraser Valley Credit Union v. Siba, 2001 BCSC 744 at para. 24. The respondent has simply received money that he ought not to have received in the disposition of the proceeds of sale.