A BC wedding photographer had a small claims case brought against them at the Civil Resolution Tribunal after the pandemic forced a shoot delay and eventual cancellation.
Kayla Edge brought the case against Caroline Zarzu, who does business as Trandafir Photography, after Zarzu refused to give Edge a refund.
Edge said she was forced to postpone her wedding due to the pandemic. Edge also said Zarzu agreed to a rescheduled date but then said she couldn’t take the photos, and offered a replacement photographer.
In a tribunal decision posted publicly, Zarzu claimed that Edge cancelled or nullified the contract by changing her wedding date, making the $750 that Edge sought non-refundable.
Here’s what the tribunal determined.
- You might also like:
- BC man gets sued for returning a Sea-Doo rental three hours late
- Landlord in hot water for refusing a renter housing because of his employer
- BC renter moves out after just two nights in new home, sues landlords
In response to Zarzu offering up a replacement photographer, Edge declined and asked for a refund, which Zarzu refused. On top of the $750 deposit, Edge also asked for $600, which she claimed was the difference in cost she paid for the photographer she eventually hired.
Zarzu shot back with a counterclaim, which included $3,500 in damages for holding a rescheduled date for Edge.
Edge’s wedding was planned for June 26, 2021, but she had inquired about Zarzu’s services via Facebook in November 2019. They met in person and signed an agreement on November 18, 2019. The agreement did not include a wedding date, but Edge paid $750 upon signing. A remaining $750 was left to be paid a week before the session date, an amount Zarzu also sought in her counterclaim.
Between November 2019 and August 2020, Zarzu moved to a different city, 900 km from Edge’s residence. A shoot date of October 2020 was initially scheduled but was rescheduled to Spring 2021.
Edge had asked Zarzu if the postponement would change anything in the agreement, and Zarzu responded it would not. Edge said she would likely be postponing due to the pandemic.
In September 2022, more messages were exchanged, and Edge asked if June 17, 2023, worked for Zarzu. Zarzu confirmed that the date worked.
On May 1, 2023, Zarzu checked in with Edge, and the parties spoke on the phone to confirm details for a June 17, 2023, wedding date.
Finally, on May 26, 2023, Zarzu said she could not photograph the wedding but had arranged a replacement. Edge expressed disappointment and asked for a deposit refund.
The tribunal said, “The parties were unable to work things out.”
Zarzu’s claim that Edge cancelled the wedding — thereby nullifying the agreement — was denied by the tribunal since Edge didn’t cancel but merely postponed her date.
“When Mrs. Edge said GB was not an acceptable replacement and asked for a refund, the contract obligated Miss Zarzu to return Mrs. Edge’s deposit.”
The tribunal member overseeing the case denied Zarzu’s counterclaim and ordered her to pay Edge $750.
Including tribunal fees, the total the BC wedding photographer owed Edge was $908.29.
Both parties remaining claims were dismissed.
Follow Channels and Categories