Latest news with #CivilResolutionTribunal
CTV News
28-07-2025
- CTV News
WestJet ordered to pay travellers $2K for cancelled flights
A pilot taxis a WestJet Boeing 737-700 plane to a gate after arriving at Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, B.C., on Monday, Feb. 3, 2014. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered WestJet to pay two passengers $1,000 each after it deemed the airline did not provide enough evidence to prove their flight was cancelled for safety reasons. The airline argued it cancelled Nathan and Leah Baugh's flights from St. John's to Vancouver with a stop in Toronto due to weather conditions, and therefore did not need to compensate them. Under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, travellers are entitled to compensation if they arrive at their destination more than nine hours after they were supposed to – if the reasons were within the carrier's control. The Baughs' flights were scheduled to depart on March 7, 2022. They said they received an email the previous day, about 17 hours before the flight, notifying them the trip was cancelled and rebooked for March 8. The pair ultimately landed in Vancouver about 24 hours later than originally scheduled. WestJet said it cancelled an incoming flight from Toronto to St. John's on March 6, which led to the cancellation of the Baughs' March 7 flights leaving from Newfoundland. The Baughs submitted a screenshot showing flights from other airlines were leaving St. John's on March 7 as normal, to argue that the weather was safe enough for flight. They also claimed they received two different explanations from WestJet as to why their flights were cancelled – in the first email that it was due to weather, and in a later call with an agent that it was due to a scheduling change. 'WestJet does not deny that their agent told the Baughs that their flights were cancelled due to a scheduling change,' the decision reads. 'However, WestJet says that their agents work with limited resources and information. WestJet says that the cancellations were caused by weather conditions and not a scheduling change.' For its part, WestJet submitted terminal aerodrome forecasts purportedly showing the weather conditions leading to their decision to cancel the flight, including wind speeds over 62 kilometres per hour and a winter storm around the city on March 6. In his decision issued last week, tribunal member Max Pappin noted that WestJet didn't provide any information about the specific aircraft or its limitations, or any expert evidence. 'Additionally, much of the evidence provided consists of unexplained acronyms, codes, and numbers, whose meaning is far from obvious. I find this evidence is highly technical and requires expert evidence to explain whether it shows that there were meteorological conditions that made safe aircraft operation impossible under APPR,' he wrote. 'I find the submitted evidence is not sufficient to show that safe operation of the aircraft was impossible due to meteorological conditions. Based on the evidence before me, I find that the flight cancellations were for reasons within WestJet's control under APPR.' Therefore, Pappin ordered WestJet to pay the pair $1,000 each for inconvenience, as well as $126.72 each in pre-judgment interest and $125 in CRT fees.
CTV News
23-07-2025
- Business
- CTV News
B.C. tribunal settles dispute over ‘altered' love seat receipt, orders full refund
A reclining leather loveseat is seen in this stock image. (Credit: Shutterstock) A man who paid for a new love seat but received a used floor model must be refunded, after a B.C. tribunal found the business 'altered' the receipt after the purchase was complete. In 2023, Dhawal Sehgal paid $1,900 for a reclining leather love seat from Budget Furniture Land Ltd., according to a decision on the dispute posted online Tuesday. 'He says after signing a contract to purchase the couch, the respondent changed the contract from a new couch to a floor display model. The applicant refused to accept the floor model and cancelled the contract,' Civil Resolution Tribunal vice-chair Christopher C. Rivers wrote, summarizing Seghal's argument for a refund. The business, for its part, said Sehgal 'knew' he would be receiving a floor model and had no right to cancel the contract. Rivers reached his decision by comparing two copies of a signed invoice: a white original submitted by the company, and a pink carbon copy submitted by the customer. 'There are significant changes between the two copies. The respondent's white copy includes the word [floor] in square brackets in a separate column after the words 'Reclining love seat.' The applicant's pink carbon copy does not,' the decision said. 'These are not two separately prepared invoices, but one showing additions made after the parties both signed the agreement.' A representative for the store didn't provide any explanation for the change, leading Rivers to accept Sehgal's version of events as more likely than not to have occurred. 'The applicant asks me to find the respondent altered their copy without his knowledge and then attempted to depend on it. I do,' he wrote. 'I find it changed the parties' contract after signing and then attempted to substitute a floor model for the agreed-upon new couch.' Given that, the tribunal found Sehgal was justified in refusing to accept the love seat and entitled to get his money back. In addition to a $1,900 refund, the business was ordered to pay Sehgal $125 in CRT fees.
CTV News
12-07-2025
- Business
- CTV News
B.C. tribunal dismisses claim for $5K in damages for beer-stained sofa
A woman who sought $5,000 in damages to repair a stained custom sofa she claimed a restoration contractor spilt beer on has had her case dismissed by a B.C. tribunal. According to a decision published June 26, Patricia Gooch took Barclay Restorations Corp. to the Civil Resolution Tribunal seeking the funds alongside an apology for a stain she claims was made while the company was carrying out flood restoration work in her home. The flooding, which occurred in May 2022 and affected 41 strata lots in Gooch's building, had resulted in her having to move out temporarily while Barclay was brought in to repair the damage. In July, Gooch's furniture was put into storage while the work continued. When the stashed furniture was returned in November, Gooch noticed a 'weird, brown, crusty, wavy stain' on her sofa underneath one of the bolsters that hadn't been there prior to the flood. The couch was not damaged during the flooding, the decision reads. Gooch told the tribunal the stain and a smell of 'old hops' remained even after steam cleaning the sofa twice. Gooch said the furniture movers and other workers who had been in her home during the flood restoration work had been supervised, while Barclay's workers had not. She also said she had seen 'several red beer cans' in her recycling bin when she visited the home in June, alongside a Barclay employee or subcontractor drinking the same brand of beer on the sidewalk outside. Gooch had suspected the company's employees had been using her strata lot to 'rest and drink in' as it was above the building's amenity room, the decision read. Ultimately, tribunal member Megan Stewart dismissed the claim, finding Gooch could not prove that the claimed beer stain was in fact derived from beer, and, even if it was, there was still the factor of the months-long gap between when Gooch last had the sofa and when she found the stain. 'I find this introduces a distinct possibility that someone or something other than a Barclay worker could have caused the staining,' Stewart concluded in the decision.
NDTV
27-06-2025
- NDTV
Ex Leaks Nude Pics, Tribunal Says It's In 'Public Interest', Denies Compensation
A civil tribunal in Canada has denied compensation to a woman whose nude pictures were shared by her ex-partner. The images, clicked in the workplace premises by the woman, were sent to the ex, who later forwarded them to their employer when the two broke up. The court ruled that the ex's actions were in "public interest". The complainant referred to by the initials "MR", clicked the photos and videos during business hours with some of the media content filmed in publicly accessible areas like a front counter, according to a report in CTV News. After the relationship broke down, the woman's ex-partner, referred to as "SS" in the court documents, sent the images to her employer, claiming that he was reporting her for "workplace misconduct". However, the complainant alleged that her ex was angry over their breakup and wanted to damage her reputation. Civil Resolution Tribunal member Megan Stewart dismissed the claim, ruling the content shared with MR's employer didn't fully meet the criteria of "intimate" under the law. "The evidence suggested at least some of the images were taken in parts of the office that were accessible to the public or other employees," said Ms Stewart in the judgment. "A person who takes otherwise intimate recordings of themselves at work does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those images to the extent they are shared with their employer for the purpose of investigating alleged misconduct, whatever the sharer's motives," it added. The Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA) under which the woman was seeking compensation, states that someone can't be found liable for sharing such images if it "was in the public interest and did not extend beyond what was in the public interest." "I find even on a strict interpretation of what is in 'the public interest,' these specific circumstances are captured," Ms Stewart added. Though Ms Steward agreed with MR that she had a reasonable expectation from her ex-partner not to share the images she sent to him 'with the public generally,' such as by publishing them on social media or an adult website. However, that expectation does not extend to the employer. Even if the images had qualified as intimate under the act, Stewart found damages would not have been warranted in the case.
Winnipeg Free Press
26-06-2025
- Winnipeg Free Press
B.C. tribunal dismisses damage claim against man who shared ex's nudes with employer
VANCOUVER – British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a claim from a woman who sought $5,000 in damages from her ex-partner for showing sexual images of her to her employer. The decision posted Tuesday says the woman sent her then-partner photos and videos of herself exposing body parts and engaging in sexual acts that were taken at her workplace during business hours. The man told the tribunal that he later shared the images with the woman's employer to expose her workplace misconduct, but the woman claimed it was done with malicious intent to cause her embarrassment and reputational harm. The names of the man and woman are protected under a publication ban. Tribunal member Megan Stewart says in the ruling that the woman didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the images were taken in an office accessible to others and that it was 'in the public interest' for the employer to be told. The tribunal dismissed the claim and determined the woman was not entitled to damages under the province's Intimate Images Protection Act. The act allows the tribunal to order compensation for aggravated or punitive damages of up to $5,000. The decision says the applicant must first prove the respondent shared or threatened to share an 'intimate image' depicting the applicant without their consent. If that is proven, then the applicant must show they are entitled to claim damages. It says most of the images submitted in this case met the the first part of the test, but the second part was not. Stewart says in her ruling that the applicant had a reasonable expectation that her partner would not share the images, but that it was in the public interest for her employer to be informed about the photos taken on company time. 'In particular, I found a person who takes otherwise intimate recordings of themselves at work does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those images to the extent they are shared with their employer for the purpose of investigating alleged misconduct, whatever the sharer's motives,' the written ruling says. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 26, 2025.
