Date Issued: October 31, 2024

File: SC-2023-005221

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bassi v. Seedat dba Beach Bouquet Destination Weddings & Travel, 2024 BCCRT 1093

Between:

IMMANJOT BASSI

Applicant

And:

INDER SEEDAT Doing Business As
BEACH BOUQUET DESTINATION WEDDINGS & TRAVEL

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Deanna Rivers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about wedding planning services. The applicant, Immanjot Bassi, hired Inder Seedat (doing business as Beach Bouquet Destination Weddings & Travel)^[1], to provide wedding planning services. Ms. Bassi says she cancelled the contract the next day. Ms. Bassi claims a refund of $2,500 of the deposit.

2.      Inder Seedat says the deposit is not refundable.

3.      Both parties are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has jurisdiction over small claims brought under Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) section 118. CRTA section 2 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. These are the CRT’s formal written reasons.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the hearing’s format, 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.

6.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in court.

Late Submissions

7.      Inder Seedat provided all their evidence after the time to do so had expired. Ms. Bassi did not object and had an opportunity to provide submissions about the evidence. I find the late evidence is relevant, so I allow it.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Ms. Bassi was entitled to cancel the contract with Inder Seedat, and if so, does Inder Seedat owe her a refund of $2,500 or some other amount?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, Ms. Bassi as the applicant must prove her claim on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. I have considered all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to explain my decision.

10.   The parties agree that:

a.    Ms. Bassi had a complimentary online consultation with Inder Seedat on February 17, 2023, about wedding planning services.

b.    Inder Seedat provided some information to Ms. Bassi between the February 17, 2023 consultation and March 23, 2023.

c.    On March 23, 2023, Ms. Bassi signed an online agreement and paid a $3,000 deposit.

d.    Ms. Bassi called Inder Seedat on March 24, 2023, to cancel the agreement. Ms. Bassi sent an email the same day to Inder Seedat confirming the cancellation and requesting a partial refund of $2,500.

11.   While the parties agree that Ms. Bassi signed a contract, neither party provided a signed copy in evidence. Inder Seedat provided a document titled Beach Bouquet Destination Wedding Planning Services Agreement. This agreement is intended to be filled in and signed online. I considered whether document submitted into evidence was sufficient proof of the agreement between the parties. There is no provision in the document to make changes other than adding information about the client. I find that the terms of the contract would not have changed by the addition of Ms. Bassi’s personal information. In any event, the terms set out in the document provided are the best evidence of the terms agreed to by the parties. As Ms. Bassi did not dispute the terms of the contract, I accept that this is the contract Ms. Bassi filled in and signed online on March 23, 2023, and formed the parties’ agreement.

12.   Ms. Bassi says that she cancelled the contract for breach of contract and a significant loss of trust in Inder Seedat. While both parties provided evidence concerning the actions of the other, for the reasons that follow I find that the reason for the contract’s cancellation does not matter.

13.   Inder Seedat says that all deposits are non-refundable. They say this is because they begin working as soon as a client reaches out. The agreement says that by submitting the initial deposit and information on the form, the customer agrees to the terms of service. Under the heading “Payment Schedule,” the agreement says deposits are non-refundable.

14.   Ms. Bassi does not specifically argue the application of Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA), although she refers to Inder Seedat providing misleading information. However, the BPCPA’s relevant sections are mandatory, and the facts connected to compliance with the BPCPA are not disputed. So, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes speed and efficiency, I find it is not necessary for the parties to make submissions on the BPCPA’s application.

15.   The BPCPA regulates contracts between consumers and suppliers. I find Ms. Bassi was a “consumer” and Inder Seedat was a “supplier” as defined in the BPCPA.

16.   BPCPA section 17 says a “distance sales contract” is a contract for the supply of services between a supplier and a consumer that is not entered into in person, and a “future performance contract” is a contract between a supplier and a consumer where either a) the supplier does do not get fully paid or b) the customer does not get their services, when the contract is made. Section 17 lists certain exclusions but these do not apply here.

17.   Because Ms. Bassi signed the agreement online, and paid Inder Seedat before the services were supplied in full, I find the contract between the parties is both a distance sales contract and a future performance contract. BPCPA section 48(1) says that if a distance sales contract is sent by electronic mail to the consumer, it is deemed to be received on the third day after it is sent. Ms. Bassi is deemed to have received a copy of the agreement on March 26, 2022.

18.   BPCPA section 19 and 23 state that for future performance contracts, among other terms not relevant to this dispute, the contract must set out:

a.    The supplier’s name, and the name under which the supplier carries on business.

b.    The business address, mailing address, and other contact information.

c.    The date the contract was made, a detailed description of the services, an itemized purchase price, and the total price.

d.    The supply date and the date the supply will be complete.

19.  BPCPA section 46 states that a distance sales contract must set out additional terms, including the currency in which the amounts owing are payable.

20.   The agreement does not have Inder Seedat’s name as supplier. The agreement’s letterhead refers to Beach Bouquet, the agreement’s title is Beach Bouquet Destination Wedding Planning Services, and within the agreement it refers to Beach Bouquet Destination Weddings Inc. The agreement has no contact information for Inder Seedat or the company other than an e-mail address for payment, which is Inder Seedat’s company email address. It has no information concerning currency. It does not provide a date by which the services would be supplied. It does not have an itemized price for services. While both parties provided a description of services, the agreement does not refer to it. I find that the agreement does not contain the information required by the BPCPA sections 19, 23, and 46.

21.  Ms. Bassi gave notice cancelling the agreement the day after entering into the agreement. If the contract does not contain the required information, BPCPA allows a consumer to cancel a contract by giving notice of cancellation to the supplier not later than

a.    1 year after the date the consumer receives a copy of a future performance contract under BPCPA section 23(5),

b.    7 days after the consumer receives a copy of the distance sales contract, under BPCPA section 49(1)(a).

22.   In addition, BPCPA section 49(1)(d) states the consumer can cancel a distance sales contract at any time before the services are delivered if the supply date is not specified in the contract and the supplier does not deliver the services within 30 days from the date the contract is entered into. While Inder Seedat had provided some information to Ms. Bassi, it is not disputed that they did not provide all the services within 30 days.

23.   BPCPA sections 23(5), 49(1)(a), and 49(1)(d) all apply to this dispute. I find Ms. Bassi cancelled the contract within the required time limits.

24.   As noted, the BPCPA provisions are mandatory. So, I find that Ms. Bassi was entitled to cancel the agreement because it did not contain the required information.

25.   BPCPA section 27 says that if a consumer cancels a contract, the supplier must refund to the consumer all money received, without deduction, within 15 days after the notice of cancellation has been given. I find Ms. Bassi gave Inder Seedat notice of cancellation on March 24, 2022.

26.   BPCPA section 55 says the consumer may recover the refund from the supplier as a debt due. I find Inder Seedat owes Ms. Bassi a refund of the $3,000 deposit. However, Ms. Bassi only claimed $2,500 in this dispute, so I limit the order to that amount.

 

27.   Given this finding, I do not find it necessary to consider whether Ms. Bassi is entitled to a refund under breach of contract.

Interest

28.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Ms. Bassi is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,500 debt from April 8, 2023 (15 days after March 24, 2023) to the date of this decision. This equals $194.51.

Fees and Dispute-related Expenses

29.   Under CRTA section 49 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 find Ms. Bassi is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees.

30.   Neither party claimed any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

31.   Within 30 days of this decision’s date, I order Inder Seedat to pay Ms. Bassi a total of $2,819.51, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,500 in debt,

b.    $194.51 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

32.   Ms. Bassi is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

 

33.   This is a validated decision and order. Under CRTA section 58.1, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.