A B.C. couple that paid thousands for wedding photo services embarked on a legal fight for a refund against their hired photographer.
The applicants, RB and HB, hired the respondent, MF, to photograph their wedding.
The couple was forced to cancel the contract because they claimed the respondent created “unbearable stress” for them. They sought $3,975.46 in damages at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.
In response, MF said the applicants breached the contract by cancelling the services.
Both parties entered into a contract on Sept. 29, 2022. The photographer was going to capture the wedding on Aug. 26, 2023. Initially, the applicants agreed to pay $2,880 for the photo package.
Wildfires that broke out near the wedding venue in Kelowna on Aug. 18, 2023, complicated matters. The City of Kelowna had declared a state of emergency, and the applicants decided to move the wedding to Prince George.
After the changes, both parties agreed that the applicants would pay MF $700 to travel to the wedding by rental car and sent an e-transfer for that amount on the same day.
On Aug. 23, the photographer shared some concerns about their capacity to photograph the wedding after such a long drive, and asked if they’d be willing to pay an extra $50 for a flight and $100 for food. The applicants agreed.
MF booked a flight that cost $739.46, so the applicants paid an additional $139.46 on Aug. 24.
On Aug. 26, which was the night before the wedding, HB sent a message with a location where the couple planned ot take some photos. MF said they didn’t have a vehicle, adding that they’d be dropped off at the first venue and picked up at the end of the night, still requiring transport between venues. HB assumed MF would be able to borrow a car from a family member they were staying with, but the respondent said that wasn’t an option.
RB took over communications between the parties because it became too stressful for HB. RB said that MF’s “constant breaches of trust” upset HB and asked MF not to contact HB the next day.
The next morning, RB’s father, M, called MF. M told MF they didn’t need her services anymore and asked her to refund $1,500. MF refused, which prompted an argument between MF and M.
MF hung up.
Undisputedly, MF didn’t photograph the wedding and hadn’t given any money back to the applicants.
In determining a resolution, the tribunal looked into the details of the contract, which stated that all retainer fees were non-refundable. The termination policy said that the clients could terminate the agreement at any time in writing by email and that if that were to happen, the respondent would keep the non-refundable retainer as liquidated damages.
Because the applicants didn’t terminate the contract in writing, that clause did not apply.
The applicants also claimed that because of the state of emergency, the B.C. wedding photographer was obligated to find a replacement at no additional cost. The tribunal disagreed.
“I find the obligation to obtain a replacement would only arise if the respondent were unable to attend the wedding and fulfill the contract due to one of the listed circumstances. As the parties agreed that the respondent would travel to Prince George for the wedding, I find this term does not apply,” the tribunal said.
The applicants also shared that they felt “trapped” by the contract, being given no choice but to agree to the additional travel costs. The tribunal inferred this meant that the applicants were arguing they were under duress when they agreed to pay.
“I find there is no evidence that the respondent unfairly pressured the applicants. So, I find the applicants have not shown that the contract was unenforceable due to duress,” the tribunal said.
Finally, the applicants tried to suggest that there was a fundamental breach of contract. They argued that repeated negative interactions made them uncomfortable with the idea of MF photographing the wedding.
“They say that a wedding photographer needs to have the bride and groom’s full trust and confidence, and that they felt taken advantage of and extorted by the respondent’s requests for additional money,” the tribunal decision states.
One of the couple’s arguments was that MF texted HB in the middle of a bachelorette party, causing undue stress. However, evidence showed that the messages from MF were in response to messages from HB.
“I find there is no evidence that the respondent intentionally timed their messages to interrupt the applicants’ events,” the tribunal said, adding that the applicants had not established that MF’s conduct made the performance of the contract impossible.
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the claim of the B.C. wedding party.