VadeLab
AllowedCivil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims·

Childcare Provider Ordered to Return Deposit and Fees After Breach of Contract

Case No.

📌 In brief

A mother sought a refund of childcare fees and deposit after claiming the childcare provider breached their contract and was negligent. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the mother, ordering the childcare provider to return the deposit and fees.

⚖️ Legal holding

A childcare provider must return a deposit and childcare fees if it breaches the contract without just cause.

Topics

breach of contractnegligencerefund of deposit

Provisions

Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 118Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 42Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 39

📚 Full judgment

The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.

⚖️ View on the official court website ↗

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The childcare provider breached the contract by refusing to provide care without proper notice.
  • The childcare provider was required to return the deposit as per the contract terms upon termination.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The childcare provider did not breach the contract by exposing the child to noise and dust from the neighboring construction site.
  • The childcare provider did not breach the contract by allowing the child to engage in outdoor activities that led to a temporary increase in body temperature.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The childcare provider must return the deposit and childcare fees to the claimant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the claimant, finding that the childcare provider breached the contract and was negligent, thus requiring the return of the deposit and fees.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act sections 118, 42, and 39 were applied.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to a refund of fees and deposit if the childcare provider breaches the contract or acts negligently.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.

Official source: Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims (© Province of British Columbia). VadeLab reproduces no part of the decision text; the summary above is VadeLab's own material. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Childcare Provider Must Return Deposit and Fees | VadeLab