Date Issued: December 8, 2023

File: SC-2022-008292

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Pan v. Trust Travel Services Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 1075

Between:

CHUNMIN PAN

Applicant

And:

TRUST TRAVEL SERVICES LTD.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Micah Carmody

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about an airfare refund penalty.

2.      The applicant, Chunmin Pan, says she purchased a flight ticket through the respondent, Trust Travel Services Ltd. (Trust), for $4,568.26. Mrs. Pan wanted to cancel the trip and asked Trust about the available refund. Trust advised it would charge $330 to initiate the refund process, and the airline would deduct another $600 from the refund. The airline actually deducted $1,144. So, Mrs. Pan claims the $544 difference. The airline is not a party to this dispute.

3.      Trust says Mrs. Pan’s son, Mr. Pan, purchased the flight ticket on her behalf. Trust says it was unaware that the airline’s penalty rates had recently increased, and it had no control over the airline’s decision to impose a penalty. Trust says I should dismiss the claim.

4.      Mrs. Pan is represented by her son, YD. It is unclear whether YD is the same son that Trust refers to in submissions as Mr. Pan. Trust is represented by an employee or principal. As I explain below, I dismiss this claim.

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.

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.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mrs. Pan is entitled to $544 in damages for Trust’s failure to provide correct information about the airline’s cancellation penalty.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      As the applicant in this civil proceeding, Mrs. Pan must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. While I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

10.   Although it does not say so explicitly, I find Trust argues out the outset that Mrs. Pan does not have standing, which means a legally recognized interest in the dispute. Trust says “Mr. Pan” contacted Trust and paid for the ticket, which would mean Mr. Pan experienced the cancellation penalty. Mrs. Pan does not explicitly dispute this, but does refer at times to payments as coming from her. The documentary evidence is unclear about who paid for the ticket. Because I ultimately dismiss the claim on other grounds, I accept for the purposes of this dispute that Mrs. Pan paid for the flight ticket and has standing to bring this claim.

11.   On September 8, 2022, Trust helped Mrs. Pan, through her son, obtain a passenger ticket from Vancouver to Xiamen, China, with Xiamen Airlines for $4,568.26. Later, Mrs. Pan decided to cancel the ticket. On September 10, Mrs. Pan’s son inquired by phone about the penalties. In follow-up messages that are translated into English and undisputed, a Trust travel agent advised that Trust would charge $330 to initiate the refund process and the airline would deduct $600. The $3,968.26 balance would be returned to the credit card in 2-3 weeks. Mrs. Pan’s son told the agent to proceed.

12.   Trust charged the credit card $330 to initiate the cancellation process. That amount is not in dispute here.

13.   On September 30, 2022, Mrs. Pan’s son advised that only $3,424.26 was received. The difference, $544, is what Mrs. Pan claims here. The travel agent checked with the airline and advised that the airline’s refund penalty was increased on September 5, 2022.

14.   Mrs. Pan does not allege a breach of contract. She says it is unfair for consumers to bear a surprising cost just because of a travel agent’s negligence. To prove negligence, Mrs. Pan must show that Trust owed her a duty of care, Trust breached the applicable standard of care, and she experienced a loss caused by the breach (see Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27).

15.   The difficulty for Mrs. Pan is in proving that Trust caused her to lose $544, or any amount. Trust says that Mrs. Pan’s son initially advised that Mrs. Pan could not postpone travel and had to cancel the ticket. Trust says this means that the penalty amount had no bearing on Mrs. Pan’s decision to cancel. In submissions, Mrs. Pan agrees, saying she would have paid any cancellation penalty so long as it was indicated clearly and accurately. In other words, had Trust accurately advised that the penalty was $1,144, Mrs. Pan would still have incurred the airline’s penalty. Based on this, I find Trust’s error about the penalty amount did not cause Mrs. Pan to incur the penalty, or to incur a greater penalty than she otherwise would have. In other words, Mrs. Pan has not shown that anything Trust did or failed to do caused her to experience a loss, which is a required element of negligence. For that reason, I dismiss Mrs. Pan’s claim.

16.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Trust was successful but did not pay CRT fees. I dismiss Mrs. Pan’s claim for CRT fees. Neither party claims dispute-related expenses.

 

ORDER

17.   I dismiss Mrs. Pan’s claims and this dispute.