Date Issued: November 21, 2018

File: SC-2018-001609

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Y.L. v. J.Z., 2018 BCCRT 748

Between:

Y.L.

Applicant

And:

J.Z.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Y.L., claims that the respondent, J.Z., breached a homestay agreement by moving out 3 months before the agreed end date. She claims the respondent owes her a penalty amount of $600, or $200 per month of the remaining homestay term. In the published version of this decision, I have anonymized the parties’ names to protect the identity of the respondent, who is a minor.

2.      The applicant is self-represented. The respondent is represented by a litigation guardian.  

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 3.1 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (Act). The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the tribunal must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

4.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions because I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

5.      The tribunal may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The tribunal may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

6.      The Residential Tenancy Branch does not have exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute because the applicant is the owner of the home and the applicant and respondent shared kitchen or bathroom facilities.

7.      Under tribunal rule 126, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may make one or more of the following orders:

a.    order a party to do or stop doing something;

b.    order a party to pay money;

c.    order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Is the homestay agreement enforceable?

b.    If so, can the applicant recover $600 from the respondent for breach of the homestay agreement?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      The respondent is a student from overseas who attends high school in British Columbia. His parents did not accompany him to Canada. It is undisputed that the applicant’s agreement was with the respondent alone. In particular, the parties entered into a homestay agreement in September 2017 when the respondent was in grade 10.

10.   The homestay agreement was oral. The parties agree that the respondent would pay the applicant $1,080 per month for the homestay. The applicant says the original agreement was for the respondent to stay with her until the end of October 2017 but that the term was later extended to June 2018. The respondent paid her the homestay fee on a monthly basis.

11.   The respondent says that he believed his homestay arrangement with the applicant was temporary. He says he was trying to find another host family but due to limited connections and a busy school schedule he was not able to do so until his parents visited him in Canada in February 2018 to assist.

12.   In February 2018, the respondent’s father told the applicant that the respondent would be moving out in March 2018. The applicant says this is the first time she communicated directly with the respondent’s father. At that time, the applicant told the respondent’s father that the penalty for leaving the homestay early was $200 for each of the 3 months remaining in the term. The respondent says this was the first time he became aware of any charge for moving out prior to June 2018.

13.   The respondent moved out of the applicant’s home in mid-March. He paid the homestay fee in full for March but has not paid any of the $600 penalty for moving out that the applicant says he owes.

14.   In order for a contract to be enforceable, the parties need to have the legal capacity to enter into that contract. People need to be able to understand what they are agreeing to and the potential consequences of breaching those agreements, and they need to have capacity in order to do that. Where parties have impaired or no capacity, for example because of age or mental impairment, the courts will not enforce their agreement or hold the parties to the terms of the contract.

15.   The age of majority in British Columbia is 19. Because the respondent is a minor, he does not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract in British Columbia, as confirmed in the Infants Act. Section 19 of the Infants Act says that contracts made by minors are not enforceable against them unless certain exceptions apply. None of these exceptions applies in this case.

16.   Further, the evidence does not support a claim that there were any parties to the homestay contract other than the applicant and the respondent. The first time the applicant had any direct correspondence with the respondent’s father was in February 2018. The first time the applicant learned the respondent’s guardian’s contact information was in March 2018. The applicant’s communication with adults associated with the respondent happened long after the homestay agreement was entered into in the fall of 2017. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, none of these adults can be said to be a party to the homestay agreement.

17.   I find the applicant’s dispute must be dismissed on the basis that the homestay contract against the respondent minor is unenforceable.

18.   Even if the respondent were not a minor, I would have found that he was not liable to pay to the applicant the penalty amount she claims. In order to be part of a contract, a term has to be agreed by all parties. There is no evidence that the respondent ever agreed to pay $200 per month in the event that he moved out prior to June 2018. Since there is no evidence that both parties agreed to this term, I find it does not form part of the homestay contract.

19.   Under section 49 of the Act, and tribunal rules, the tribunal will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for tribunal fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Since the applicant was unsuccessful, she is not entitled to reimbursement for her tribunal fees or any expenses.

ORDERS

20.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.

21.  I order that the published version of this decision anonymize the parties to protect the identity of the respondent, who is a minor.