Latest news with #CivilResolutionTribunal
CTV News
4 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
B.C. man says Expedia charged double the agreed price for Hong Kong flights
An Expedia sign is seen in a file photo. Expedia has been ordered to reimburse a B.C. traveller who said his credit card was charged more than double the price he agreed to pay for flights. Christopher Yin Chan filed a dispute against the company in B.C.'s small claims tribunal, arguing he was overcharged for a pair of round-trip tickets between Vancouver and Hong Kong. Chan told the Civil Resolution Tribunal when he clicked Expedia's 'complete booking' button back in June 2023, the quoted price for the trip was $3,977. The next day, a charge for $8,308 appeared on his credit card. 'He says he immediately contacted Expedia but that it was unwilling to resolve the issue with him,' tribunal member Peter Nyhuus wrote, in a recent decision. 'He says he did not want to cancel his travel plans, so he started this dispute seeking a refund of the amount he was overcharged.' Chan's evidence included a screenshot of the Expedia website, taken the day after his purchase, which showed a pair of flights with a similar itinerary listed for $3,977. Nyhuus said he found it 'unlikely' that the airfare would drop in price by upwards of 50 per cent overnight. 'Expedia has not said this happened,' Nyhuus noted. 'Expedia merely says that, 'based on the checkout process,' Mr. Chan was notified of, and agreed to, the airfare price prior to the purchase.' The company did not provide further explanation of its checkout process to the tribunal. Nyhuus ultimately found it was more likely that Chan was overcharged, ordering Expedia to reimburse him for the difference of $4,330, plus $406 in pre-judgment interest and $200 in tribunal fees.
CTV News
4 days ago
- CTV News
B.C. landlord ordered to return damage deposit to tenant who never moved in
The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a landlord who kept a damage deposit from a tenant who never moved in to pay it back, finding there was no legal basis to withhold the sum. In March of last year, applicant Kieran Ryckman-Harding toured a room in respondent Harold Markus' house and agreed to rent it for $1,1000 per month, according to the decision issued Monday. Ryckman-Harding paid a $550 damage deposit. However, the next day, he changed his mind about moving in and texted Markus to ask for the money back. He refused. Tribunal member Christopher Rivers noted in the decision that the sole term of the tenancy, found on the damage deposit receipt, was that the rent was due on the last day of the month, and did not include any agreements about notice, minimum tenancy, the deposit's return, 'or anything else.' Markus argued in submissions that after a 'security deposit' is paid, the tenancy is considered established, and the money can be used to cover unpaid rent. 'While the respondent refers to 'B.C. laws on security damage deposits,' he does not provide me with any legislation or caselaw to support his position,' Rivers wrote. 'I find the respondent is alleging the applicant breached an implied contractual term that if the applicant changed his mind about moving in, he would still owe rent for the first month, and would forfeit the deposit.' However, Rivers pointed out that the parties called the payment a 'damage deposit,' not a 'security deposit,' on the receipt and in submissions. 'Here, I find the deposit's purpose was apparent from its name: a damage deposit. Its purpose was to ensure the respondent had funds to repair damage the applicant may cause to the property during the tenancy,' he wrote. 'Contrary to the respondent's argument, I know of no British Columbia law that permits a party to keep a deposit provided to fix potential damage to property where there was no such damage.' The tribunal ordered Markus to pay Ryckman-Harding $550 for the damage deposit, $36.67 in pre-judgment interest, and $125 in CRT fees.
CTV News
09-06-2025
- Automotive
- CTV News
Apology note left on dinged car was a ‘binding contract,' B.C. tribunal rules
A 10-word apology note a woman left on a car she dinged in a parking lot constituted a legal agreement to pay for repairs, B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal recently ruled. A decision on the dispute was posted online Friday, finding the handwritten note was enough to establish a 'binding contract' between the parties. 'The note read 'I dinged your back passenger door / happy to pay for!' and included a phone number,' tribunal member Maria Montgomery's decision said. It was 'undisputed' that Carly Peddle 'caused the dent' and left the note in September of 2023 when she was dropped off at an event by a friend, according to the decision. The owner of the damaged car, Richard Brooks, filed a claim with the tribunal seeking damages for negligence, asking for $500 as reimbursement for his ICBC deductible. According to the decision, the two spoke on the phone after the incident, and Peddle offered Brooks three options: paying for the repairs after they were completed, paying $2,000 immediately, or leaving Brooks to pursue reimbursement through ICBC. 'The respondent argues that she did not agree to pay for repairs if the applicant filed a claim with ICBC,' Montgomery wrote. However, the note contained no such caveat. 'I find that the respondent offered to pay the repair costs. I find that the parties' submissions and emails show that the applicant accepted that offer,' the decision said. 'I therefore find that the parties had reached a settlement agreement, which was a binding contract that the respondent could not later amend without agreement from the applicant.' In addition to reimbursing Brooks for the deductible, Peddle was ordered to pay $125 in tribunal fees and $34.35 in pre-judgment interest.
CTV News
06-06-2025
- Lifestyle
- CTV News
B.C. woman's sextortion claim dismissed after image found to be lookalike
The Reddit app icon is seen on a smartphone in a Feb. 28, 2023, file image. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File) A damages claim from a B.C. woman allegedly targeted in a sextortion attempt has been dismissed – after the purported blackmail material turned out to depict a lookalike, of sorts. The woman told the province's Civil Resolution Tribunal her ex-boyfriend tried coercing her into having sex with him by threatening to share a compromising image of her if she refused. The image features two people 'engaged in sexual intercourse' but does not show their faces, according to the tribunal's decision, which was published online this week. The decision does not name the woman or her ex, for privacy reasons. The woman sought $5,000 in damages under B.C.'s Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA), but the case fell apart after the ex-boyfriend revealed the picture was not actually her. 'Instead, he said it was a screenshot of a couple from an adult film on Reddit,' tribunal member Megan Stewart wrote, in her June 3 decision. The claimant accepted that was the case – despite seeing a 'strong resemblance' between the body of the woman in the image and her own – after she was able to track down the original video. But she continued to pursue damages against her ex-boyfriend over the allegation he had tried 'forcing her to meet him for sex,' according to the decision. Stewart ultimately dismissed the claim, noting that for a case like hers to be successful under the IIPA, the law is clear that the image must 'depict' the victim – which the tribunal member said she 'had trouble concluding' in these circumstances. 'While (the woman) initially said she was certain the image was of her because of an identifying birthmark, she later acknowledged it was not,' Stewart wrote. The tribunal member added there was no 'suggestion or evidence' that the ex-boyfriend had altered the image to make it resemble the woman, or shared it anywhere while falsely representing it as her.
CTV News
28-05-2025
- General
- CTV News
Sexualized image isn't ‘intimate' if it's already been shared publicly, B.C. tribunal finds
A woman seeking compensation for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images has had her case dismissed by a B.C tribunal which found she had no 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' The woman, referred to as 'AQ' was seeking $5,000 in damages, which is the limit available through the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The respondent, referred to as 'BV,' did not deny sharing the image of AQ in a blog post. No details about the image in question are provided, but tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr found it 'clearly' met some of the criteria of an intimate image, as outlined in the province's Intimate Images Protection Act. Namely, he said it showed 'AQ engaging in a sexual act, nude or nearly nude, or exposing her genitals, anal region, or breasts.' But the legislation's definition of an intimate image is two-fold, Regehr's decision noted. The second part of the test is whether someone 'had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the images were recorded, and also when they were shared.' The case was complicated by the fact that AQ had shared the image herself on a 'major social networking site,' according to Regehr. 'AQ said this post was inadvertent, but I did not accept that evidence. I found that the post was intentional,' the decision said. Finding AQ had published the image, the tribunal had to weigh whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the case. AQ argued the harmful impact of the image's sharing ought to be considered and that 'she is the subject of often vicious online harassment from multiple people, including BV, who frequently use the image as part of offensive posts,' according to the decision. Regehr acknowledged that one of the purposes of the legislation is 'to promote individual autonomy over their intimate images with a view to reducing harm.' But he also found an image does not meet the legal threshold of being 'intimate' if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. 'I find that a reasonable person understands that by posting something broadly on the internet, such as in a publicly viewable social media post, they have functionally lost all control over it. They have offered it for the entire world to see,' he wrote. 'This is an action inconsistent with reasonably expecting privacy in the image in the future. I find that by posting an image in a public online place, an individual forfeits any reasonable expectation of privacy over that image. It does not matter how graphic the image is, how much they later regret posting it, or how upsetting it is to see it resurface.' AQ's complaint was dismissed on those grounds. The tribunal also considered an allegation about a second explicit image, but found no evidence it was shared by BV. A counterclaim from BV, alleging AQ shared a nude photo of them on social media, was also dismissed, with the tribunal finding insufficient evidence that AQ was the one behind the anonymous social media account that shared it. The province introduced the IIPA in 2023, the Civil Resolution Tribunal the jurisdiction to address these types of claims to provide an alternative to the more difficult, lengthy and potentially costly options of trying to pursue redress through criminal or civil court.
