Date Issued: February 2, 2023

File: SC-2022-003509

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Moayed v. Choquette, 2023 BCCRT 95

BETWEEN:

FAEGHEH SOLEYMANY MOAYED

APPLICANT

AND:

RACHEL CHOQUETTE

 

RESPONDENT

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrea Ritchie, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about short-term rental accommodation. The applicant, Faegheh Soleymany Moayed, booked a bed and breakfast owned by the respondent, Rachel Choquette, for her family members. Ms. Moayed says Ms. Choquette unreasonably evicted her family from the premises early. She seeks reimbursement of $417 for the original rental costs, $200 in gas, and $1,000 for pain and suffering.

2.      Ms. Choquette says Ms. Moayed breached AirBnB’s booking policies by booking for a third party and failing to follow the house rules. She denies owing Ms. Moayed any refund.

3.      The parties are each self-represented.

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 parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says that the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In some respects, the parties in this dispute call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other. 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 that 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. Choquette breached the parties’ rental agreement by evicting Ms. Moayed’s family and, if so, whether Ms. Moayed is entitled to the claimed damages.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Ms. Moayed must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only addressed those necessary to explain my decision. I note Ms. Moayed did not provide any written submissions, apart from what she wrote in the Dispute Notice, despite the opportunity to do so.

10.   The background facts are undisputed. Ms. Choquette listed her vacation property for rent through AirBnB. Through AirBnB, Ms. Moayed booked a 2-night stay for 4 members of her family, not Ms. Moayed herself, at Ms. Choquette’s bed and breakfast for May 22 to 24, 2022. Ms. Moayed and Ms. Choquette had an altercation on May 23, which led to the police removing Ms. Moayed and her family from the premises.

11.   Ms. Moayed says Ms. Choquette was not entitled to evict her family and seeks reimbursement of the $417 she paid for the 2 nights’ accommodation, plus $200 in gas and $1,000 for pain and suffering.

12.   Ms. Choquette argues she reasonably evicted Ms. Moayed’s family for three reasons. First, Ms. Choquette says Ms. Moayed breached AirBnB’s booking policies by making a booking for a third party (her family) while Ms. Moayed was not staying at the rental, despite telling Ms. Choquette she was. Second, Ms. Choquette says Ms. Moayed broke the house rules, as discussed below. Third, Ms. Choquette says Ms. Moayed was unreasonably rude and made false accusations against her.

13.   A screenshot of AirBnB’s booking policies states that booking for friends and family is prohibited, and you cannot book on someone else’s behalf unless you are staying at the rental with them. Ms. Choquette also provided a text message from Ms. Moayed when she made the initial booking which stated “I’m coming with my brother and sister”. It is undisputed Ms. Moayed was not staying at the property with her 4 family members. Ms. Moayed does not address AirBnB’s booking policy. I find Ms. Moayed breached the policy by booking on her family’s behalf, with no intention of staying at the property with them.

14.   Ms. Choquette also says Ms. Moayed broke the house rules by having too many people stay at the home, not abiding by the parking rules, and by smoking on the property. Ms. Moayed does not deny she agreed to those rules, or that she broke them, so I accept that she did.

15.   It is also undisputed the parties had somewhat of a verbal altercation when Ms. Choquette confronted Ms. Moayed about her breaking the rules. Both parties allege they called the police due to feeling unsafe. Neither party submitted a police report in evidence. In any event, I accept the parties’ relationship broke down such that it led Ms. Choquette to ask Ms. Moayed and her family to leave.

16.   Based on the evidence and submissions before me, I accept Ms. Choquette reasonably evicted Ms. Moayed’s family from the rental. As noted, Ms. Moayed chose not to provide any initial submissions or any reply submissions to Ms. Choquette’s arguments. As I find it was Ms. Moayed’s actions that ultimately led to the eviction, I find she is not entitled to any reimbursement of her rental fees, gas expenses, or alleged pain and suffering. I note the claims for gas expenses and pain and suffering are unproven in any event. I dismiss Ms. Moayed’s claims.

17.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. As Ms. Moayed was not successful, I dismiss her claim for reimbursement of tribunal fees. Ms. Choquette was successful but did not pay any tribunal fees or claim dispute-related expenses.

 

ORDER

18.   Ms. Moayed’s claims, and this dispute, are dismissed.