Date Issued: May 26, 2021

File: SC-2021-000512

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Okanagan Mediation Services Ltd. v. Oyama Lake Eco Lodge, 2021 BCCRT 568

Between:

OKANAGAN MEDIATION SERVICES LTD.

Applicant

And:

OYAMA LAKE ECO LODGE

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about mediation services. The applicant, Okanagan Mediation Services Ltd. (Okanagan Mediation) says it performed work for the respondent, Oyama Lake Eco Lodge (OLEL), but has not been paid. Okanagan Mediation claims $1,800 for its unpaid invoice.

2.      OLEL says Okanagan Mediation has not provided any mediation services to OLEL and it should not have to pay the invoice.

3.      Okanagan Mediation is represented by its president, Brent Batten. OLEL is a partnership and is represented by one of its partners, Nickie Burditt.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      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.

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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.

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did the parties have a contract?

b.    If so, did OLEL breach the contract by failing to pay Okanagan Mediation’s invoice?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant, Okanagan Mediation must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

10.   For the following reasons, I find Okanagan Mediation has not proven that the parties had a contract or that OLEL breached any contract and I dismiss Okanagan Mediation’s claims.

Did the parties have a contract?

11.   Okanagan Mediation says the parties signed a mediation agreement agreeing to the mediation fees. In evidence is a January 18, 2020 mediation agreement. The parties listed on the agreement are Brent Batten, the president of Okanagan Mediation, and three other individuals, Nickie Burditt, NS and SB. The signature page includes signatures for all four individuals listed above, but does not indicate that any of the individuals are signing on behalf of either Okanagan Mediation or OLEL. Neither Okanagan Mediation nor OLEL are listed anywhere on the agreement. In addition, there is no evidence before me that OLEL is a legal entity. So, I find the agreement was not between Okanagan Mediation and OLEL. Rather, I find the agreement was between Brent Batten, Nickie Burditt, NS and SB. OLEL is the only named respondent in this CRT dispute. In particular, Nickie Burditt, NS and SB are not named parties to this dispute.

12.   Okanagan Mediation is the applicant in this dispute, not Brent Batten. Okanagan Mediation did not provide any submissions about why Brent Batten was listed personally on the agreement, instead of Okanagan Mediation. So, I find that none of the parties to this dispute are parties to the agreement.

13.   The legal doctrine known as “privity of contract” is relevant here. Privity of contract means that a contract cannot give rights or impose obligations on anyone who is not a party to a contract. In other words, a person must first agree to a contract in order to be bound by it.

14.   As noted, above, as the applicant Okanagan Mediation bears the burden of proving its claims. Here, I find Okanagan Mediation has not proven it had an agreement with OLEL. Given that OLEL was not a party to the agreement, I find that OLEL cannot be bound by it. So, I find Okanagan Mediation has not proven its claims against OLEL. I make no findings on the rights and obligations of any party to the agreement.

15.   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. OLEL has not paid any CRT fees or claimed any dispute-related expenses, and so I award none.

ORDER

16.   I dismiss Okanagan Mediation’s claims and this dispute.