If you’re booking vacation accommodations, it might be a good idea to read the fine print, even if you’re the one offering the accommodation, as a B.C. vineyard resort recently learned.
According to a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, Thee Vineglass Vineyard, a group that runs a resort in the Similkameen Valley, was on the receiving end of a claim.
The claim was from a potential client, a law firm, that had booked accommodations through the resort and had later cancelled, but didn’t get their deposit back.
The tribunal’s decision states that the customer claimed $3,162.50.
In response, the vineyard group claimed that the client wasn’t entitled to a refund due to certain cancellation policies that apply to full-estate bookings.
In March 2023, the firm booked the entire estate for an annual lawyers’ retreat in September 2023. The invoice totalled $6,325. The firm paid a deposit of $3,162.50 but ultimately had to cancel due to wildfires and told the tribunal the deposit was refundable.
The director of the vineyard resort claimed the deposit was not refundable, but the tribunal sided with the B.C. law firm for several reasons.
A cancellation policy submitted into evidence by the law firm stated that if the cancellation was submitted 30 days or longer before the check-in, they were entitled to a full refund.
“It also noted that special cancellation policies apply to full-estate bookings, but those policies are not set out,” the tribunal’s decision reads. The tribunal added that the resort did not advise the firm of a different cancellation policy.
The director of the resort provided the following cancellation policy to the tribunal.
“The total balance is due 60 days before the booking date. If cancelled within 30-60 days, a 25 per cent refund is available.”
The director could not offer any evidence that the policy was in effect when the law firm made the reservation.
Emails were also submitted into evidence by the law firm, which suggested that the resort offered to extend the full reimbursement period. The tribunal took this to mean there was a binding agreement between the two parties about a refund.
Ultimately, the resort was ordered to pay the firm $3,663.07, which included the refund and tribunal fees.