Food fight: East Van school and vending machine supplier battle over instant noodles in court

A vending machine supplier has won a case against a BC high school in court that instant noodles were at the very centre of.

The BC court case that got heated over instant noodles was between the Vancouver School Board (VSB) and Po Hua Ma. It stemmed from the result of changes that the school board made about products that could be included in vending machines, which had to adhere to a new health standard.

Ma’s contract with Van Tech Secondary School was the issue at the core of this case. Ma, with Po Ma Vending, was the claimant in the case, while the VSB was the defendant.

You might also like:
• Woman shocked to find imposter helped husband annul marriage in BC court
• No glue for you: Court forbids BC activist from possessing adhesives
• Vancouver City Council approves body-worn cameras for police officers

Initially, Ma was seeking $35,000 for loss of commissions concerning the high school dispute’s impact on his business.

Following the new vending machine guidelines, there was one instance when Ma failed to adhere to them on February 1, 2017. That instance involved including a pack of instant noodles in a restock of the vending machines. Instant noodles apparently went against the health guidelines.

While Ma doesn’t refute that he failed to comply on this occasion, he denies any other breaches of the guidelines.

The Principal Vey-Chilton at Van Tech claimed numerous breaches of the guidelines and suggested some machines were not in working order.

According to a document from the provincial courts, things take a weird turn around this time.

At Van Tech, there’s a small school food retail shop run by students enrolled in the Small Business Program. Court documents state that “two incidents” occurred at the shop involving Ma in July 2017.

Ma states that when he went to restock the machines in early July, he noticed that the shop was selling products that included instant noodles. He felt the school was hypocritical and that the double standard could “negatively impact the financial return from his vending machines.”

Ma met with the principal of the summer program and raised his concerns, who told Ma to speak with the administrators.

Then, Ma attempted to take photos of the products in the shop, but the summer program principal shut off the lights. Ma intended to show Vey-Chilton the images highlighting the double standard. Ma admits he didn’t have consent to take photos, which is part of a policy at the school. Ma also denies photographing any students in his pictures, which the principal of the summer program claims he did.

Ma tried to take more photos, and the principal positioned himself in front of the products.

Things escalated from there.

The principal of the summer program claimed that Ma became aggressive and grabbed one of his hands to “physically move him.”

Ma reluctantly let go and left the school.

This was reason enough for Van Tech and the school board to pursue terminating the contract with Ma.

While the court failed to see why Ma should receive $35,000, it did decide he was entitled to nominal damages of $1,000.

The conclusion of the court document states that at one point during court proceedings, Ma’s daughter had some outburst which resulted in a $750 fine, which was subsequently returned to Ma, as it wasn’t fair to punish him for “the indiscretion of his daughter.”