Date Issued: December 7, 2020

File: SC-2020-004433

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Appelt v. C.P.M. Farms Ltd., 2020 BCCRT 1378

Between:

MELISSA APPELT and TYLER LAWRENCE

ApplicantS

And:

C.P.M. FARMS LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the return of a deposit and installment payment for a wedding venue. The applicants, Melissa Appelt and Tyler Lawrence, say they hired the respondent, C.P.M. Farms Ltd. (CPM), to provide a venue for their wedding scheduled for August 15, 2020.

2.      The applicants say they had to cancel the wedding due to the provincial government’s restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They seek a refund of a $1,000 deposit and $3,000 installment payment they paid to CPM.

3.      CPM says the deposit was non-refundable and the applicants refused several options it suggested so the wedding could still take place either on the scheduled date or on another date in 2021.

4.      The applicants are self-represented, and CPM is represented by its owner, Caroline Mostertman.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

6.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

7.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT 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 CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

8.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether the applicants are entitled to a return of the $4,000 deposit and payment made to CPM.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil claim such as this, the applicants Ms. Appelt and Mr. Lawrence bear the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. While I have read all of the parties’ evidence and submissions, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

11.   The parties agree that they entered into a contract on January 19, 2019 for CPM to provide a venue for the applicants’ August 15, 2020 wedding and reception. According to the relevant contract terms:

a.    The facility was reserved for the applicants for August 15, 2020. The venue had a 140 person maximum seating capacity,

b.    The fee for a Saturday event was $7,900 plus applicable taxes,

c.    A $1,000 booking fee was due at the time of booking. A $3,000 installment was due 6 months before the event. The final payment was due 4 weeks before the event,

d.    If the event was cancelled within 4 weeks of booking, the deposit less a 12% “admin fee” was refundable. After the 4 week period, the deposit was non-refundable. The first installment was non-refundable after it was received. Nothing would be refunded after the final payment was made.

e.    The contract contained a force majeure clause that stated “The ability to execute this Agreement by either party is subject to the Acts of God, including but not limited to hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, fires, etc. as well as any government intervention, staff disputes and strikes, changes to by-law and licensing, civil disorders, terrorism, or other emergencies. Should the event be canceled through a Force Majeure event, all fees paid by Client to C.P.M. Farms Ltd. will be returned to Client within thirty (30) days.”

12.   The parties agree the applicants paid CPM the $1,000 deposit on January 19, 2019 and the $3,000 first installment on February 20, 2020. They also agree that the applicants intended to have 82 guests at the wedding.

13.   The applicants say that on March 17, 2020 the provincial government limited gatherings to a maximum of 50 people due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They also say that since they planned to invite 82 guests to their wedding, the limit affected their wedding plans. On May 8, 2020 they decided to cancel their wedding and asked CPM for a refund. CPM says it gave the applicants the following alternatives, but the applicants still insisted on a full refund. The options given were:

a.    If the attendees were reduced to 50 people, CPM would reduce the cost by 50% of the original rental fee, which it says would be a reduction of approximately $3,000,

b.    Postpone the wedding to a later date at no additional charge,

c.    Hold the deposit as a credit if the applicants could not commit to a future date,

d.    Refund to the applicants $2,000 of the $4,000 paid to date if the applicants still wanted to cancel, or

e.    Have the wedding hosted in 2 separate groups on the same day with a 2-hour window so CPM could clean the venue.

14.   The applicants say the following:

a.    After accounting for caterers, servers, the DJ, and the bartender, they would only be able to invite 40 guests,

b.    Despite the number of guests, it would be unconscionable to still hold the wedding due to the risk of infection since many of their guests were over 65 years old (such as parents and grandparents) and some were travelling out of country. They also say that according to the Provincial Health Officer, older guests and those with health conditions should participate by video link,

c.    CPM’s calculations are inaccurate, and a 50% reduction of a $7,900 booking fee is $3,950, not $3,000,

d.    Another date in 2021 was not possible because all Fridays and Saturdays in the summer of 2021 were booked and their guests could not attend on another weekday or a Sunday. Also, CPM increased the cost of a Saturday wedding in 2021 by to $1,000.

e.    CPM had not put $2,000 worth of time and effort towards the applicants’ wedding and they only met with Ms. Mostertman once, and

f.     CPM never offered to split the wedding into 2 groups.

Force majeure clause

15.  The applicants say they cancelled the wedding due to a force majeure. A force majeure is an unforeseeable circumstance preventing a party from fulfilling a contract. In order for the contract’s force majeure clause to apply, the applicants must show that the contract was cancelled due to an act of God. While I find that the government restrictions would be considered an act of God, I find it was not the reason the wedding was cancelled.

16.  I find that while the applicants were prepared to reduce the number of guests to comply with the government restrictions, they cancelled the wedding because, based on the Provincial Health Officer’s recommendations, they felt it would be too risky for their respective grandparents or parents to attend. I find the applicants’ wedding could have gone forward in compliance with the province’s COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The parties did not address whether some of the family members could participate by videoconference.

17.  As for rebooking in 2021, I find there is no evidence that the applicants informed CPM the wedding must take place on a Saturday in the summer. In fact, the contract had a spot to add the day of the week for the event and it was left blank. The applicants also did not inform CPM that it was important to them that certain family members attend the wedding.

18.  The applicants say that CPM should not keep the $4,000. They say CPM’s staff only spent a short time with them when they first looked at the venue and also provided 2 $25 tickets to a trade show. They deny there were any further meetings with CPM. CPM says that the fees are non-refundable to compensate for lost opportunity. It says by reserving the venue for the applicants’ August 15, 2020 wedding, it lost the opportunity to book with another client.

19.   I find that the applicants signed the contract, understanding that the deposit was non-refundable 4 weeks after the contract was signed and the first installment was non-refundable after it was received. There is no claim that there was fraud, duress, mistake or illegality involved in their decision to sign the contract. The contract is also not unjust in such a way that I would find it unconscionable. So, I find that it is binding on both parties. Therefore, I find CPM is entitled to keep the deposit and first installment pursuant to the parties’ contract.

20.   Based on my reasons above, I dismiss the applicants’ claim for a refund. I acknowledge CPM’s prior offers to apply the $4,000 to a future event or provide the applicants a $2,000 partial refund, which the applicants declined. Given that this dispute proceeded, I find CPM is not bound by its earlier offers.

21.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. Since the applicants were unsuccessful, I dismiss their claim for CRT fees. CPM did not claim any fees or expenses.

ORDERS

22.   I dismiss the applicants’ claims and this dispute.