Date Issued: October 5, 2021

File: SC-2021-000867

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Parker v. Ahmadi, 2021 BCCRT 1068

Between:

TEJA PARKER

Applicant

And:

NAJMEH AHMADI

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about eyelash extension services. In 2020, the applicant, Teja Parker, purchased and received eyelash extensions from the respondent, Najmeh Ahmadi. Ms. Parker says Ms. Ahmadi negligently applied the eyelash extensions and did not inform her about the risks of eyelash extensions or advise her how to properly wash her eyelash extensions. Ms. Parker says she developed blepharitis (an eye condition) as a result. Ms. Parker claims $2,925 in damages for distress, pain, loss of time and social activities, loss of money, and life-long suffering.

2.      Ms. Ahmadi says she applied the eyelash extensions with reasonable care and denies that Ms. Parker suffered any injury as a result. Ms. Ahmadi also says Ms. Parker sought further eyelash extensions from her after being diagnosed with blepharitis, and failed to disclose her condition to Ms. Ahmadi. Ms. Ahmadi says she is not responsible for Ms. Parker developing blepharitis.

3.      Both parties are self-represented in this dispute.

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.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Ms. Ahmadi was negligent in providing the eyelash extension services, and if so, what remedy is appropriate.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Ms. Parker must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities. This means I must find it more likely than not that Ms. Parker’s position is correct.

10.   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.

11.   It is undisputed that Ms. Parker received eyelash extensions from Ms. Ahmadi in September, October, and December 2020.

12.   Ms. Parker says her symptoms of blepharitis became evident at the end of October 2020. She says she began experiencing extreme dryness in her eyes, and excessive “eye gunk”, among other symptoms.

13.   In November 2020, Ms. Parker says both her and her friend received eyelash extensions from another lash technician. She says the lash technician advised her that her friend’s lashes, also done by Ms. Ahmadi, were done poorly. I place little weight on this hearsay evidence because it is opinion hearsay evidence from an interested party (Ms. Parker) that does not meet the CRT’s requirements for expert opinion evidence in any event.

14.   Ms. Parker says she was diagnosed with blepharitis on November 30, 2020. A November 30, 2020 optometrist record in evidence diagnosed Ms. Parker with conjunctivitis, blepharitis and meibomianitis, which are all eye conditions. The record also noted that the “timing coincides with recent visit to have eye lash extensions, patient feels there was a possible reaction to lash extension glue” (reproduced as written). The optometrist did not provide an opinion on the cause of Ms. Parker’s symptoms or conditions.

15.   An undated optometrist report in evidence indicates that Ms. Parker was diagnosed with blepharitis by another optometrist on December 27, 2020. The optometrist report did not provide an opinion on the cause of Ms. Parker’s blepharitis.

16.   It is undisputed that Ms. Parker returned to Ms. Ahmadi in December 2020 for further eyelash extensions, after her blepharitis symptoms were already present, because she “liked how [she] looked with [Ms. Ahmadi’s] lashes”. Ms. Parker says she did not advise Ms. Ahmadi of her symptoms because they were not contagious. Ms. Ahmadi says if she had been made aware of Ms. Parker’s symptoms, she would not have provided Ms. Parker with further eyelash extensions. However, I find nothing turns on this issue, and I have not addressed it further.

17.   Ms. Parker says that during her visits with Ms. Ahmadi, Ms. Ahmadi glued the eyelash extensions to the skin of her eyelids, used too much glue, and did not properly advise her how to care for her eyelash extensions. As noted above, Ms. Parker says she developed blepharitis as a result.

Was Ms. Ahmadi negligent in providing eyelash extension services?

18.   To establish negligence, Ms. Parker must prove that Ms. Ahmadi owed her a duty of care, breached the required standard of care, and that the breach caused Ms. Parker to suffer damages (see Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27).

19.   I find that in providing eyelash extension services to Ms. Parker, Ms. Ahmadi owed her a duty of care. At issue is the standard of care. Since applying eyelash extensions is a technical procedure outside of ordinary knowledge, I find expert opinion evidence is necessary to establish Ms. Ahmadi’s required standard of care (See Bergen v. Guliker, 2015 BCCA 285).

20.   Ms. Parker provided statements from two people who obtained eyelash extensions from Ms. Ahmadi, JH and AC. Both JH and AC say that they were not advised of any “eyelash aftercare” and say their eyelash extensions were improperly glued. Neither JH or AC identified themselves as lash technicians or other individuals qualified to provide expert opinion evidence. So, I find these statements do not assist me in determining the standard or care for Ms. Ahmadi. The statements also do not provide any details of quality of the service that was provided to Ms. Parker. So, I find these statements are unhelpful and I have given them no weight.

21.   Ms. Parker says she spoke to another lash technician who said her lashes were “done poorly”. However, she did not provide a statement from any lash technician, or any other expert evidence to establish the standard of care for a person providing eyelash extension services.

22.   Without any expert evidence, I find that Ms. Parker has not established Ms. Ahmadi’s required standard of care for providing eyelash extension services, and so she has not shown that Ms. Ahmadi was negligent. So, I dismiss Ms. Parker’s claim.

23.   I note that even if I had found that Ms. Ahmadi breached the standard of care, Ms. Parker has not provided expert evidence (which I find is required) to prove that Ms. Ahmadi’s alleged negligence caused Ms. Parker’s blepharitis in any event. Given my conclusion above, I do not need to address Ms. Parker’s claimed damages.

24.   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. As Ms. Parker was unsuccessful, I dismiss her CRT fee claim. Ms. Ahmadi did not pay any CRT fees or claim any dispute-related expenses, so I award none.

ORDER

25.   I dismiss Ms. Parker’s claims and this dispute.