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

Consumer Wins Full Refund for Missing Mandatory Information in Contract

Case No.

⚖️ Legal holding

A consumer is entitled to cancel a future performance contract and receive a full refund if the contract lacks certain mandatory information required by the BPCPA.

Topics

refundcontract complianceconsumer protection

Provisions

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, s. 19Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, s. 23(2)Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, s. 27

📖 Technical summary

The claimant is entitled to a full refund due to missing mandatory information in the contract.

📚 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 contract was missing the full business name, address, and telephone number of the supplier.
  • The contract failed to include the date it was made.
  • The contract did not specify the total price.
  • The consumer cancelled the contract before receiving any services.
  • The supplier did not provide specific evidence of financial loss from the cancellation.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The supplier argued that cancellations close to the booking date cause real losses and make reselling difficult.
  • The supplier argued that a specific regulation regarding cancellation rights notice applied to this contract.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The consumer was entitled to a full refund because the contract lacked certain mandatory information required by the BPCPA.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about a refund for a snowmobiling trip that the consumer could no longer participate in due to an injury.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) sections 19, 23(2), and 27 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 might be entitled to a full refund if the contract lacks certain mandatory information required by the BPCPA.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered included the contract terms and conditions, the payment details, and the cancellation policies.

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.
Consumer Entitled to Full Refund Due to Missing Contract | VadeLab