Date Issued: October 7, 2021

File: SC-2021-001369

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Decorating Solutions (Niagara) Inc. v. Phanouvong, 2021 BCCRT 1071

Between:

DECORATING SOLUTIONS (NIAGARA) INC.

Applicant

And:

DOREEN PHANOUVONG

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about tuition for online classes. The applicant, Decorating Solutions (Niagara) Inc. (DSI), says the respondent, Doreen Phanouvong, paid the tuition through PayPal then obtained a refund from PayPal without justification. DSI seeks $2,413.95 for the tuition.

2.      Doreen Phanouvong disagrees. She says DSI failed to provide her time to complete the online final exam and did not provide a certificate of course completion.

3.      An employee or principal represents DSI. Doreen Phanouvong is self-represented.

4.      For the reasons that follow, I find DSI has proven its claims. I order Doreen Phanouvong to pay the amounts set out below.

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.

9.      I note that in my June 4, 2021 preliminary decision, I extended the time allowed for Doreen Phanouvong to provide evidence. She provided further written submissions and 2 emails from December 2020 and January 2021. I allow them and consider their weight below.

ISSUE

10.   The issue in this dispute is whether Doreen Phanouvong owes DSI $2,413.95 for tuition and if so, whether any reduction is appropriate.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant DSI 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.

12.   I begin with the undisputed background facts. On August 2, 2020, Doreen Phanouvong registered for DSI’s online home staging course by paying a registration fee of $525. DSI emailed confirmation of the registration on August 4, 2020 and issued an invoice on the same date. I find the email and invoice largely documented the parties’ agreement, even though they were sent 2 days after Doreen Phanouvong had agreed to pay for DSI’s course. This is because the parties did not say different documents governed and Doreen Phanouvong did not say they had agreed to different terms.

13.   The email said the following. The course cost $2,413.95, and Doreen Phanouvong agreed to pay the balance owing by October 7, 2020. DSI agreed to send instructional materials before classes started. Students were required to take a final online exam within 2 weeks of classes ending. The invoice showed classes were held online on October 24, 26, and 31. A shipping receipt showed Doreen Phanouvong received class materials on October 23, 2020.

14.   It is undisputed that Doreen Phanouvong paid the above-mentioned registration fee and tuition through PayPal and subsequently attended the online classes. DSI’s printouts show Doreen Phanouvong started the online exam on November 14, 2020 but never completed it. The parties agree that Doreen Phanouvong then requested a refund from PayPal in January 2021, which PayPal granted in February 2021. I note that PayPal’s decision does not bind me.

Does Doreen Phanouvong owe DSI $2,413.95 for tuition and is any reduction appropriate?

15.   I find that DSI fulfilled its obligations as it provided the training materials, online classes, and online final exam as contemplated in the August 4, 2020 email. This is supported by the shipping receipt and printouts referred to above. As DSI agreed to provide an online course, I find it was an implied term that DSI would test students at the end of it. As Doreen Phanouvong did not complete the test, I find DSI was not obligated to provide a certificate of completion.

16.   Doreen Phanouvong says DSI failed to provide her time to complete the final exam. I disagree. The evidence shows DSI provided Doreen Phanouvong an opportunity to complete the exam within the allotted time period. Doreen Phanouvong’s December 5, 2020 email to DSI indicates she failed to finish because she was taking care of a sick family member.

17.   For the reasons that follow, I also find that DSI reasonably provided an extension and Doreen Phanouvong unreasonably declined to use it. In the December 5, 2020 email, Doreen Phanouvong asked DSI for more time to complete the exam. A DSI representative replied by granting the request and asking when she wanted to start. Doreen Phanouvong did not reply to this email. She then asked DSI to respond on January 18, 2021, even though it had already done so. DSI replied that same day that it could set up testing again. In submissions, Doreen Phanouvong did not mention that DSI had responded twice. As this was a key point, I do not find her to be a reliable historian of events in this dispute.

18.   Doreen Phanouvong also says DSI charged extra fees and directed threats and racist remarks at her. I find these allegations unsubstantiated by any evidence. I also find them not credible given my earlier findings on Doreen Phanouvong’s reliability.

19.   For the above reasons, I order Doreen Phanouvong to pay DSI $2,413.95. The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. DSI is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the debt award from February 8, 2021, the date PayPal refunded the tuition, to the date of this decision. This equals $7.18.

20.   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. I find DSI is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. DSI claimed no specific dispute-related expenses so I order none.

ORDERS

21.   Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order Doreen Phanouvong to pay DSI a total of $2,546.13, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,413.95 in debt,

b.    $7.18 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

22.   DSI is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

23.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, the CRT will not provide the parties with the Order giving final effect to this decision until the time for making a notice of objection under section 56.1(2) has expired and no notice of objection has been made. The time for filing a notice of objection is 28 days after the party receives notice of the CRT’s final decision.

24.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. A CRT order can only be enforced if it is an approved consent resolution order, or, if no objection has been made and the time for filing a notice of objection has passed. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.